Skip navigation
schwieterman
Currently Being Moderated

Using InDesign 5.5 with InDesign 5 files

Jun 23, 2011 1:58 PM

A co-worker has InDesign 5.5 and wants to edit my InDesign 5 documents. Is this possible and will it cause problems with formatting and the fonts?

Thanks

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2011 3:09 PM   in reply to schwieterman

    ID 5.5 has a new file format. Files created or saved with 5.5 don't open in 5.0. The solution is to export in interchange format (IDML) so that 5.0 can reopen the file.

     

    What a pain!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2011 4:34 PM   in reply to schwieterman

    When I save it in an IDML file and then he edits it in InDesign 5.5, and saves it in a IDML will formatting be changed or any other problems when I open it in InDesign 5?

    It may.

    If you use CS5.5-specific features, then it certainly will change.

     

    If not, it probably won't, but it could... if you test it, you should see consistent results.

     

    But it's not a recommended workflow and nobody is going to give you a guarantee.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2011 6:36 PM   in reply to schwieterman

    schwieterman wrote:

     

    I did not get my upgrade for CS5 wen it was free and now it costs $400. Do you see any reason to upgrade to CS 5.5?

     

    Thanks Carol

    If you purchased CS5 during the free upgrade window you still qualify for the upgrade. Just call customer service.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 1:53 PM   in reply to schwieterman

    Milk that cash cow! Never-mind that you piss off your customers. I guess we'll have to expect an upgrade EVERY SINGLE YEAR from now on.

     

    You know Adobe, Quark was once as arrogant and careless about customer service as you have become. Keep that in mind.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:01 PM   in reply to sububi

    I can assure yout that nobody cares if you upgrade or not. If there are features you think are worth it, buy it...if not, don't.

     

    It's called capitalism. Someone makes something and others decide whether to buy it or not.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:14 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    You couldn't be more wrong. It's imperative that I upgrade to every new version. It's not about relatively minor new features, most of which are uneeded by anybody, but COMPATIBILTY with existing and new customers. It's not a matter of choice.

     

    Coming out with a new version every 12-18 months is completely unecessary from a customer point of view. And if Adobe doesn't care about pissing off customers with another too-soon upgrade, like you assert Bob, then why are they in business?  And by the way, what's it to you?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:18 PM   in reply to sububi

    You post something on the internet and everyone is free to respond...even people who disagree with you. And now that you've explained further I disagree with you even more.

     

    If you have customers upgrading then you're using this software to make money. So what you're saying is you have the right to make money but Adobe doesn't? Interesting take on things especially when the upgrade cost can easily be covered in one job.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:25 PM   in reply to sububi

    Coming out with a new version every 12-18 months is completely unecessary from a customer point of view. And if Adobe doesn't care about pissing off customers with another too-soon upgrade, like you assert Bob, then why are they in business?

    This is a debate about progress and features versus stability, and it is hard to find a good balance that works for everyone.

     

    I think Adobe is listening and that's why they have started the subscription model.

     

    Personally, I am much happier with a faster release cycle because it means my bugs can be fixed faster, and I can get the features I need as the marketplace evolves. If I cared more about EPUBs and interactive stuff, which are not really my space, I would be much more interested as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:43 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    I never said anything about Adobe not making money. My complaint is that it is unduly exploiting its customer base, many of whom (like us) must regularly upgrade multiple licenses. And who wouln't be using Creative Suite to make money? I don't know that anyone would purchase this expensive software for any other reason. If I pulled a stunt like this (forcing needless upgrades)  with my customers I could expect a similar reaction to mine. In fact, many of them would likely walk. Adobe can get away with it however, because it's software is so popular and wide spread. There is really no other option but shut up and pay.

     

    I understand your point John, but do you honestly believe it's okay to pay (large sums I might add) for bug fixes? The subscription model is a good start towards placating annoyed customers, but Adobe could do a lot better. A mid-cycle bug fix upgrade (and actually called that instead claiming it's a major upgrade) with a low cost fee would be a lot easier to swallow.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:52 PM   in reply to sububi

    You keep insisting that these new features are worthless.

     

    Tell that to someone who works on Epub and they're very like to laugh in your face.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 2:52 PM   in reply to sububi

    I'd prefer not to get into marketing and product management questions, but I think there are reasonable answers on both sides.

     

    We buy a volume license and with it buy automatic upgrades. I hear anecdotally that there's really no minimum purchase requirement to do so, so perhaps that's an option for you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2011 6:03 PM   in reply to sububi

    This is one of those “you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't” types of issues.

     

    In a perfect world, software developers would have the tremendous foresight to be able to plan for every feature that one would ever want now and in the future (and how the users want those features to be implemented), the insight into every operating system developer's plans for the next n years, and the skills to be able to implement such a miracle with the further miracle of no anomalies. Unfortunately, that perfect world simply does not exist and in fact is an impossibility.

     

    (1)     There are features that were put into InDesign 7.5 for which no specification nor demand existing for InDesign 7.0 and well as features and standards that changed in a short period of time. Examples of this include ePub support, support for PDF/X-4:2010, support for VAR plug-ins for generation of PDF/VT, etc. I can give examples of similar features for every version of InDesign going back to InDesign 1.5. Getting these features out to our users as quickly as possible is a very strong requirement of many of our users, especially our users who are on the bleeding edge and must be able to take advantage of new technology, market trends, etc. Dare I say, such users are trying to make sure that they aren't the collateral damage of the changing requirements of their customers.

     

    (2)     In the last several years, we have seen fairly upward-incompatible updates to MacOS X that required major changes in the MacOS versions of Adobe software and especially the installers for same. Windows hasn't been nearly as difficult in this regard, but there still has had to be some significant re-engineering to be able to fully and properly interface with new Windows versions. I know of very few Adobe customers who would be content to remain on old OS versions for any significant period of time after new OS versions are released simply because these new OS versions aren't compatible with their existing applications. Many of these OS changes are absolutely not simple changes or patches that could be easily applied to existing versions of Adobe applications.

     

    (3)     And of course there are bugs that need to be fixed on a regular and ongoing basis. Users rightfully want them fixed yesterday. The only economically viable method of dealing with such fixes when new versions are under development is to put those fixes in the new release under development.

     

    On top of all of this, there are accounting rules, at least in the United States, which prohibit us from adding significant features to existing software without some severe financial consequences. (This is associated with the rules of “revenue recognition.”)

     

    Thus, the choice is that Adobe (1) rapidly releases new application and gets new/updated features as well as OS support to users in a timely fashion or (2) waits two to three years between releases and let the users stew about us not meeting their needs and OS incompatibility. The first option gets the advanced users what they need ASAP, but with a certain degree of pain (additional training, software installation, upgrade costs, etc.) The second option is less directly painful to the user in terms of the same factors, but also serves to throttle our users needs.

     

    In many cases, Adobe has elected to go with the first option. There is no requirement that every user upgrade their software every time Adobe issues a new release. It is the users' choice. On the other hand, the users who chose not to upgrade cannot ethically complain that Adobe isn't moving quickly enough to provide tools for the latest and greatest standards and market conditions.

     

              - Dov

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2011 12:29 AM   in reply to Bob Levine

    It's wonderful to have new features. What is NOT wonderful, is the apparent, shall I say, self-interest of altering the file system to the point of incompatibility. We all know this not a REQUIREMENT of the upgrade design, it's done for programming ease and the specific purpose of squeezing more juice from the orange. Another one of Adobe's loathsome characteristics. They've been doing it forever. But between 5.0 and 5.5? Really, that is shameful.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 20, 2011 6:56 AM   in reply to frederickbarth

    The file structure was altered not to require you to purchase an upgrade, but to make certain new features work better. They didn't work well in version 7.0. They work better in version 7.5 because of the changes.

     

    Now, if you don't use or need those new features, the only reason for purchasing the upgrade would be to enable opening of files saved by someone else in 7.5. If those files are not making use of the new features, having that person export .idml should be satisfactory.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2011 2:14 PM   in reply to schwieterman

    I'm not very sympathetic to Adobe right now. The justification for changing a file format (yet again) sounds hollow, and in agreement with other posts, has the outward appearance of being designed to force an upgrade chain-reaction.

     

    OK - I get it.  The rapidly changing technology landscape necessitates changing the file format to accommodate new innovations. But somehow I'm not convinced. Perhaps the lawyers and the accountants were put in the same room to figure out how to get past the accounting rules. And perhaps you've made us jaded Adobe.  The PSD file format is backwards compatible to the point of being  useful, but for InDesign (and Flash) there seems to be consistent file  format incompatibility from each major verison (and now minor verisons  too?!).

     

    So it seems there is either an apparent (and recurring) lack of vision on the part of the engineers during the development of major product releases, or an inability to create a versitile adaptable file format (really?), or there is a revenue strategy.  Or some combination of all of the above. Regardless, it makes me and my clients hot under the collar to suddenly have to wrangle different file format versions while on a deadline because someone blindsides the workflow with a file format change -- this time based on an incremental version change?!

     

    So Adobe hasn't compelled me to upgrade based on new indespensible technology or productivity advances. No, it has forced the upgrade based on a file format change they claim is needed to implement features that I don't require -- in an incremental upgrade.  I wonder what percentage of the install base will actually use it.

     

    And now for the real issue:  The nightmare begins yet again - trying to service different clients with their various CS versions.  Trying to keep them happy while training them to export (continually reminding them about the "don't forget to export to IDML" extra step), not to mention the apologies for Adobe messing up the workflow.  Sure I can upgrade, or not.  But I have no control over their budget cycles, and their ability to keep in step.  And given that it was about a year ago that they made their way to CS5 (or not), this is a royal pain.

     

    Adobe - you haven't improved my productivity with InDesign 5.5.  You have actually made it more difficult to get things done.  Hopefully I can appreciate what you have created in the future, but right now, I'm just plain angry.  Call me when CS6 is released and the file format has changed yet again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2011 2:27 PM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    Lose the conspiracy theory. If that were case Illustrator, Photoshop and Dreamweaver would have the same issues.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2011 3:06 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Maybe they are being run by the A-Team.  How about not forcing $500 incremental version upgrades that disrupt workflows as they ripple through the user base. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2011 3:32 PM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    For the umpteenth time, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Software / hardware upgrades are a part of doing business. If you need an upgrade to support your clients you can make that money back in a job or two.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2011 5:57 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Maybe you miss the point that an upgrade causes a chain-reaction of file version conflicts.  My upgrading means I'm removing effiency from the workflow of all the  clients that have not upgraded.  While not upgrading puts the burden on the  other clients to follow the workaround process to accommodate me.

     

    The over-riding complaint isn't a new file format, a new feature, or the cost of the upgrade.  The complaint is the absence of backwards compatibilty outside of the juggling of exported and imported file formats.  And it keeps cropping up with every release.

     

    In the real world that means someone forgets, so the files need to be reposted or resent, then there is a timelag associated with that and all the wasted productivity accompanying the process.  In my case it's not the money - it's the time.

     

    Look. I've had to dig up passwords, figure out screen names and all sorts of misc. to be able to voice my frustration over an incremental version change.

    And what was the lifespan of the release version of the 7.0 .indd file format anyway?  I would so much rather be excited about new features than dreading the next release and how that impacts workflows and the required workarounds.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 26, 2011 6:03 PM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    Have you not bothered to read anything about this? If you need to send a CS4 file to a client then you work in CS4.

     

    Upgrading to CS5.5 doesn't mean removing earlier versions from the machine. And if you have people working for you that can't understand something that simple, fire them, because they're totally incompetent.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 8:36 AM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Oh brilliant Bob - stick to defending Adobe instead of dispensing 3rd rate business advice. Yes, let's fill the machine with multiple versions of software releases until the system is a bloated pig (funny how quickly that still happens).  It would be much better if I could uninstall them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:03 AM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    Bob might be a little harsh, and you might not like what he's saying, but your answer is like saying you should only need to keep one size battery around when you have devices that require three different batteries to operate.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:12 AM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    Keeping software on your computer doesn't cause any bloat. It's a simple matter of file management and using the right software for the job.

     

    Often I tell people not to create logos in photoshop and use a vector package like Illustrator* I get the spiel about being forced to buy every Adobe package where 1 will do.

     

    The fact is, the right tool for the right job. If someone else is working in CS4 then you should too. Jumping up and down versions isn't really the best way to work.

     

    No point in having a go at Bob, he's made valid points. And Bob can't do anything about the situation either, he's just informing you on the best way to approach your work situation. Which is all true.

     

    *edit - this was InDesign I meant Illustrator

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:13 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    I meant *use Illustrator (not InDesign)

     

    I tried to edit the post but it didn't update for some reason.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:17 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    When faced with the power and elegance of some of the other products in the Adobe suite and their ability to maintain some semblance of backwards compatilibility, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't do it with InDesign ( CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 and now CS5.5). Just makes life more difficult to keep all this stuff around and to juggle files back and forth.  That's all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:19 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    Eugene Tyson wrote:

     

    I tried to edit the post but it didn't update for some reason.

    Adobe conspiracy...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:25 AM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    We know that - you're not the first to say it either lol

     

    There is a post by Harbs from In-Tools explaining the complexity of InDesign

     

    http://in-tools.com/article/whats-with-back-save-to-earlier-versions-o f-indesign/

     

     

    There's also a feature request - which I think that a lot of people have filled out. And I know that Adobe reads these. The more that request it the more likely they will work on it.

     

    https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

     

     

    But the fact that it hasn't been doable since CS/CS2/CS3/CS3.5/CS4/CS5/CS5.5 tells me that it's not easy to do.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:26 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    I'm getting that a lot lately. Perhaps I need to log out and back in. But I'm afraid if I log out I won't be allowed back in ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:26 AM   in reply to Eugene Tyson

    Yes - use the right tool for the right job. But I respectfully disagree about the bloat.  Computers just preform better when out of the box with a sleek streamlined set of applications on them.  Not to mention the pain in the arse of installing multiple versions of CS when a new machine comes on-line.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:27 AM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    jr2_Blackridge wrote:

     

    When faced with the power and elegance of some of the other products in the Adobe suite and their ability to maintain some semblance of backwards compatilibility, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't do it with InDesign ( CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 and now CS5.5). Just makes life more difficult to keep all this stuff around and to juggle files back and forth.  That's all.

    Even for illustrator, the structure of the file format is quite a bit simpler under the hood, I believe, than it is for InDesign. Nobody is denying that this is a pain -- I've screamed as loud as anyone -- but it's not about marketing, it's about making the application do what users want.

     

    In may ways we're fortunate to have .idml. There was no way to backsave at all for early versions, and until .idml you were stuck with a need for a continous chain -- version skippers were out of luck. .idml is compatible all the way back to CS4, and it looks as if that may hold true into the future with .idml produced from yet unimagined new versions. That you can't open a CS5.5 file directly in CS5 is certainly inconvenient, but at least it's not totally impossible and knowing what the reality is one can plan for it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 9:50 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    P Spier wrote:

     

    Bob might be a little harsh, and you might not like what he's saying, but your answer is like saying you should only need to keep one size battery around when you have devices that require three different batteries to operate.

    On the contrary, Adobe is saying you need three sizes of batteries to run one flashlight, one for using the flashlight inside the house, one for out in the yard, a third (fourth, fifth) for using the flashlight outside in or near the car, and one extra for using the flashlight in New Jersey.
    The fact is that most major software producers manage to maintain compatibility of files one way or another and provide that as part of the current product.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 11:45 AM   in reply to jr2_Blackridge

    My work computer is running Windows XP with 2gb RAM and a 2.12ghz dual core processor.

     

    And I have many different versions of InDesign and no performance issues.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 27, 2011 1:33 PM   in reply to frederickbarth

    frederickbarth wrote:

     


    The fact is that most major software producers manage to maintain compatibility of files one way or another and provide that as part of the current product.

     

    That is EXACTLY what Adobe has done by including the export to IDML command.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2011 12:24 PM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Since 5.5 opens 5.0 files, some form of compatibility already exists.  Now that Indesign has so many formats, it behooves Adobe to add some kind of backwards compatibility beyond the pathetic dll export option. 

     

    For example, it's not a stretch of the imagination to allow 5.5 to save in 5.0 format, and keep working in that format (with appropriate feature warnings) if the user needs to.

     

    Yes Bob, you could have CS 3/4/5+ installed on your machine to deal with the problem, but that's running around the block to get to the front door.  This is simply a case of bad design

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2011 12:57 PM   in reply to comitant

    comitant wrote:

     

    Since 5.5 opens 5.0 files, some form of compatibility already exists.

    Actually, that's not true. Each new version of ID must have a conversion module programmed to convert the old file format into the new one at the time it is opened. This is costly (and frankly I'm a little surprised that the effor is put into converters for all versions going back to 1.0). It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money trying to go the other direction (write a module for CS5 to open CS5.5) when there are unsupported features that CAN'T be converted and after development on a previous version is finished. You'd never move forward.

     

    Would you gripe less if the version were numbered CS6 instead of CS5.5? Would you expect full backward compatibility for a full integer version difference?

     

    I think it's unfortuante that things are as they are, but if they could have created a fully backward compatible file they would have, at least according to the InDesign engineers I've had discussions with. That the decision was made to charge as much as they are for the upgrade makes it worse, but it has nothing to do with what is possible and what is not.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 9, 2011 1:22 PM   in reply to comitant

    InDesign also opens Quark and Pagemaker files so by your logic it should also be able to save to those formats and allow the user to keep working in them.

     

    Frankly, I've gotten quite bored with this entire argument. Go on ranting all you want. It's not going to change a thing because even if you could save back by simply saving instead of exporting, you'd have the same problems with lost or badly mangled features.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 6:45 AM   in reply to Bob Levine

    Bob, how many liscenses of CS do you own?   Imagine the bumblefcuk situation with three seats of CS 5 and three new seats with 5.5.  Keeping .5 compatibility (not pagemaker), or having a more robust save-as feature is not logic but a common courtesy to CS users.

     

    As for problems, 99.9% of Indesign work deals with text, vectors, and bitmaps.  If something can't be saved down to 5.0, so be it. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2011 6:51 AM   in reply to comitant

    So, you'd feel better saving as instead of exporting? What's the difference?

     

    You're still going to have the same issues...granted going from 5.5 to 5.0 won't be as big a headache but it can still have issues. You cannot have a collaborative workflow between versions.

     

    I'm not saying...and I never have said...that it's an ideal situation. I'm only the messenger and I'm giving you the facts.

     

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points