# Swift Publisher 3. Desktop Publishing Program



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Just got this program with the latest MacHeist bundle,
Anyone used it? Is it comparable to QuarkXPress?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Did a search, Thought so, It's just a dinky wanna be program
Oh well, It was cheap, Part of 10 other programs for $19.99.

But, If you missed getting it through MacHeist then in a way you missed getting it for free in a way,
Considering this program was bundled with 9 other programs that I'll use a lot more than this one.

iTunes has a reviewer that accessed it



> Customer Reviews
> Not bad at all . . .
> 
> by hermitix
> ...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

CNET hits the nail right on the head unfortunately



> CNET Editors' review
> 
> by: Paul Hughes on January 31, 2011
> Swift Publisher is a low-cost desktop publishing program that's perfect for graphic-design neophytes who need to produce simple documents such as posters, letterhead, cards, and fliers.
> ...


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I would not expect much from an app for that price to compete with indesign. Quark is old news, we have not dealt with anyone using Quark in probably 8 years or more. 

Would be nice if there was some competition for indesign, but its a standard in the print world now. I guess to really know if an app like this is worth it is to decide what your needs are. Just for home use or printing on our own printer? Or are you setting up jobs that will be going to press or need to work with spot colours and the like?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

There's also the open-source *Scribus*

_If you're after real desktop publishing power, free of charge, then nothing can compete with Scribus.

The program is packed with professional features - CMYK and spot colours, ICC colour management, direct editing of vector drawings, extensive PDF support and more - and provides everything you need to produce flyers, brochures, newspapers, books and more.

All this power does take quite some time to master, though, and while the developers have tried to help (and there is plenty of documentation to point you in the right direction) you'll need to be patient: the sheer volume of features means there's still a significant learning curve._

(from a roundup of DTP apps at TechRadar)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> Just got this program with the latest MacHeist bundle,
> Anyone used it? Is it comparable to QuarkXPress?





> *I'm prejudiced against the prejudiced*


So you admit to being prejudiced. 

You seem to not realize that by presuming someone is prejudiced that makes you the same as them, and yet you also seem to think you occupy some sort of "high ground".

Strange that. 

Are you a fan of this Steely Dan album by any chance?


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> There's also the open-source *Scribus*
> 
> _If you're after real desktop publishing power, free of charge, then nothing can compete with Scribus.
> 
> ...


I just downloaded scribus just to take a look, always curious what is out there for page layout. Talk about a different, it is more foreign to me when I first switched from Quark to Indesign. There was some similarities between the two way back when, but this just feels extremely foreign. Cant say if it is good or not as I have only poked in, but I can say it seems to extremely different from indesign and quark. Where are the tool bars and palettes you can keep open with specific things you use all the time?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Actually, I'm looking for web capable programs,
Need to have a program that can output to the web and publish to paper as well.

Found: Adobe InDesign CS2 Free

It will work will other Adobe products that I already have.

P.S. It's a 993.3 mb download

I'll have to test it after I download it and see what its like.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Wonderings*: I've never actually used Scribus - it's probably sitting in my /apps/ folder, waiting for me to check it out  Sorry, I'm no help on that front.

*Lawrence:* Um... _good luck_. No way in hell would I torrent an app like that (certainly not Adobe-authorized). There was a torrented version of iWork a year or so ago that many Mac users picked up, leading to the first mass Trojan infection in Mac history... While it's letting you do all the things CS2 would do, what's it doing behind the scenes, without your knowledge? Especially if there's an install process in which you have to authorize it with your password.... :yikes:


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Wonderings*: I've never actually used Scribus - it's probably sitting in my /apps/ folder, waiting for me to check it out  Sorry, I'm no help on that front.
> 
> *Lawrence:* Um... _good luck_. No way in hell would I torrent an app like that (certainly not Adobe-authorized). There was a torrented version of iWork a year or so ago that many Mac users picked up, leading to the first mass Trojan infection in Mac history... While it's letting you do all the things CS2 would do, what's it doing behind the scenes, without your knowledge? Especially if there's an install process in which you have to authorize it with your password.... :yikes:


Good question, Maybe I'll pass on it then.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Indesign is the standard, if this is for work, and you deal with other companies for print, I would shell out for indesign. It is my favourite app of the creative cloud and I have not found or seen anything that works as well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

wonderings said:


> Indesign is the standard, if this is for work, and you deal with other companies for print, I would shell out for indesign. It is my favourite app of the creative cloud and I have not found or seen anything that works as well.


Nothing compares to Indesign, especially if you are using other Adobe programs like Illustrator and Photoshop and are importing graphics and photos into your publication. It is simply a breeze.

Having started out with PageMaker and then Quark, after a few iterations Indesign simply blew them away in terms of ease of use and just how logical everything is. Very intuitive if you have any DTP experience at all.

Like you say wonderings, if you are doing Pro work Indesign is simply unmatched for DTP.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

screature said:


> Nothing compares to Indesign, especially if you are using other Adobe programs like Illustrator and Photoshop and are importing graphics and photos into your publication. It is simply a breeze.
> 
> Having started out with PageMaker and then Quark, after a few iterations Indesign simply blew them away in terms of ease of use and just how logical everything is. Very intuitive if you have any DTP experience at all.
> 
> Like you say wonderings, if you are doing Pro work Indesign is simply unmatched for DTP.


I couldn't agree more. I started out with PageMaker as well - then worked at a newspaper doing layout for a couple of years, where we were forced to use an antiquated version of "Quirk" as we not-very-affectionately referred to it (it had a very bad habit of crashing and locking up, on our rather ancient G4s...running OS 9, 5 years after OS X had come out...oh the pain). The paper's graphics people had newer Mac Pros and were allowed to have InDesign, but the proprietary pagination software the paper used was tied into Quark. So I became reasonably adept with it, but always so very happy to return home to OS X and InDesign! It's well worth it, IMHO if you're doing anything professionally with it and can write off the cost. I use CS6 - I'm resisting the cloud for as long as I possibly can. 

If you don't need all the power of InDesign, Pages '09 is quite capable. NOTE: Pages 5, which is the current version, is a complete neutered disaster and until/if they fix it to bring back all the features they stripped out in a stupid move to make it completely iPad compatible and render it useless for any but the simplest word processing task, I would advise staying far, far away. Pages '09 can still be found at Amazon and perhaps for a little less on eBay: [ame]http://www.amazon.ca/Apple-MB942Z-A-IWORK-RETAIL-INT/dp/B0014X2UAK[/ame]

I did get Swift Publisher with the MacHeist bundle - but haven't spent more than about 5 minutes with it and while it might be useful for something quick and dirty, Pages '09 has a lot more export options. I was mostly interested in Intensify, to add to my arsenal of fun filters etc.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Good post Paddy.

Not to mention MS Publisher, the worst of the worst, which is still the "standard" for DTP on Parliament Hill. No wonder all their publications look so bad.

It is a piece of ****e... I guess they are just so tied into the MS eco system that they are reluctant to accept change.

You can use Adobe products but that comes with additional cost and no support. Luckily enough I don't need the support. All I had to do was convince my boss of the added benefits to support the extra spending. 

I convinced a couple of offices outside of mine of the benefits to adopt/pay for Indesign with the promise that I would be their "support", which I did. It added to my work load but I knew it was the right thing for them to do... in the end they thanked me for the advice, support and helping them make the right decision.

I just wish Parliament would get on board with reality and make Adobe CS part of their default/standard installation of programs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I still prefer PageMaker but that ship has left the harbour. I have been using Indesign for years but never took to it. Certainly have no desire to return to Quark or any other bargain basement layout tool.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Quark was never a bargain basement layout tool. It was the industry standard at one point and it was also fairly expensive. I started on Pagemaker so I found Quark a bit of an uphill battle but in time I came to appreciate it - until InDesign came along. I think Quark got complacent about being the top dog and let things slde. In the end I remember it being very buggy. I stopped using it as soon as Indesign 1.0 came out - somewhere around 2000.

The latest Pages is a sad joke. One of those inexplicably backward Apple moves that always leaves me scratching my head.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I still prefer PageMaker but that ship has left the harbour. I have *been using Indesign for years but never took to it*. Certainly have no desire to return to Quark or any other bargain basement layout tool.


Just curious as to what it is about the program that you do not like?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Just curious as to what it is about the program that you do not like?


The image sizing feature for example. I was much happier to drag the corners to reduce/enlarge and fit the keyline around a photograph myself. Instead, the "modify image" control and various handy features designed to specify the actions within a predetermined frame seem unnecessarily complex and slow me down.

Also, the inability to quickly select an item using the arrow select tool. In PageMaker it was fairly easy to select exactly whatever element you wanted. Example would be a small photo surrounded by text. In PageMaker, I could select the photo by drawing a rectangle around it using the select arrow. In Indesign, the text layers that surround the photo are also selected.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I still use Pages for a lot of low-end DTP stuff - more than sufficient, very familiar and easy to use... plus the Alpha tool made a huge difference in the ability to layout graphics. The only issue is with CMYK output - and that's something that various folks have found ways to achieve (for the most part).

That said - I'm talking about Pages 4.3. The new Pages 5.0 (iWork '14 or whatever it is now) - I have no idea, apart from what I've read, regarding missing features and such. It's on my hard drive, but i have little inclination to check it out...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The image sizing feature for example.* I was much happier to drag the corners to reduce/enlarge and fit the keyline around a photograph myself.* Instead, the "modify image" control and various handy features designed to specify the actions within a predetermined frame seem unnecessarily complex and slow me down.
> 
> Also, the inability to quickly select an item using the arrow select tool. In PageMaker it was fairly easy to select exactly whatever element you wanted. Example would be a small photo surrounded by text.* In PageMaker, I could select the photo by drawing a rectangle around it using the select arrow. In Indesign, the text layers that surround the photo are also selected.*


I can still do this. What iteration of Indesign are you using?

You can still so this in Indesign you just have to create a separate layer for your photo and then it is completely independent from the text. 

It just depends on how you set up your layers and where you put your various content.

The proper use of layers in Indesign is very powerful (similar to Photoshop in that regard) and one of the best things about it IMO.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remained at InDesign CS3. It's the layers that I don't enjoy in InDesign, although I like them in PhotoShop. I would say that it takes me on average 25% longer to complete a job in InDesign than it did in PageMaker. I even hate having to create boxes for text and photos. In PageMaker you could just slap the stuff down!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I do remember that from PageMaker and I vividly recall being annoyed that Quark was forcing me to creat text or image boxes. Seemed very backwards to me. I recall feeling much the same going from FreeHand to Illustrator.

Part of this though is simply unfamiliarity with a given app's particular toolset and its interface gestalt / workflow. Spend enough time in any of these puppies and you start to grok how they work. Sometimes you even end up appreciating the elegance of a particular approach over that of a competitor app.

Layers in InDesign rock. Great way to filter out stuff you don't want to mess with, just edit what you want without disturbing other layout elements.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I remained at InDesign CS3. *It's the layers that I don't enjoy in InDesign*, although I like them in PhotoShop. I would say that it takes me on average 25% longer to complete a job in InDesign than it did in PageMaker.* I even hate having to create boxes for text and photos.* In PageMaker you could just slap the stuff down!


Well I can't help you with that then. 

I don't create boxes for photos, I either use Command D to place the photo or I simply drag and drop them out of Bridge.

Also with your text tool selected you can click and drag out a text box where ever you want one so I don't find that to be a big deal either.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I do remember that from PageMaker and I vividly recall being annoyed that Quark was forcing me to creat text or image boxes. Seemed very backwards to me. I recall feeling much the same going from FreeHand to Illustrator.
> 
> Part of this though is simply unfamiliarity with a given app's particular toolset and its interface gestalt / workflow. Spend enough time in any of these puppies and you start to grok how they work. Sometimes you even end up appreciating the elegance of a particular approach over that of a competitor app.
> 
> *Layers in InDesign rock. Great way to filter out stuff you don't want to mess with, just edit what you want without disturbing other layout elements*.


Exactly. Plus you can lock them down when you don't want to accidentally muck up what is in that layer and also you can hide layers to look at different iterations/design possibilities within the same page/document. 

They are the bee's knees IMO.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I dimly recall feeling a bit out of my league when Photoshop introduced layers. Of course, in no time flat it made massive sense. I couldn't imagine working 'flat' anymore.

The other lovely thing is that not only can you lock and hide layers so as to prevent accidents, you can also visually isolate a single layer by turning all the other ones off, enabling you to concentrate visually on just the editing/designing at hand. Then turn everything back on when you want to see how your most recent work fits into the overall design. Hugely useful.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

screature said:


> Well I can't help you with that then.
> 
> I don't create boxes for photos, I either use Command D to place the photo or I simply drag and drop them out of Bridge.
> 
> Also with your text tool selected you can click and drag out a text box where ever you want one so I don't find that to be a big deal either.


I do the same, no need anymore to create a picture box and then import the picture into that. I just use the key board shortcut, select my file and go from there. Its simple and easy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I dimly recall feeling a bit out of my league when Photoshop introduced layers. Of course, in no time flat it made massive sense. I couldn't imagine working 'flat' anymore.
> 
> The other lovely thing is that not only can you lock and hide layers so as to prevent accidents, you can also visually isolate a single layer by turning all the other ones off, enabling you to concentrate visually on just the editing/designing at hand. Then turn everything back on when you want to see how your most recent work fits into the overall design. Hugely useful.


Totally agree. Layers is one of the reasons why I abandoned Quark for InDesign.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A shame Quark let its former dominance slide through complacency. Wouldn't be the first time that happened in the software sweepstakes.

But the time was ripe for InDesign to come along and clean up. I liked it from the get-go, even though it had teething pains. I think it had to do with the Adobe feel of it. By that time I was very much used to Illy and PS and so ID felt very mich like a younger sibling from the same family.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> A shame Quark let its former dominance slide through complacency. Wouldn't be the first time that happened in the software sweepstakes.
> 
> But the time was ripe for InDesign to come along and clean up. I liked it from the get-go, even though it had teething pains. I think it had to do with the Adobe feel of it. *By that time I was very much used to Illy and PS and so ID felt very mich like a younger sibling from the same family*.


Yup I hear ya. Going to InDesign from Quark felt like I was going home, just comfortable and right.

Even though Quark was powerful, I never liked it. It seemed clunky and not very intuitive. Plus ridiculously expensive. I don't feel sorry for them in the least.

With InDesign, as you say because of already using Illustrator and PS, it felt like I already knew most of the program because of the similarities in where the menus are, the overall "layout" of where things are, what they do, keyboard short cuts etc.


----------

