4 Replies Latest reply: Aug 24, 2008 7:21 PM by ratnikh RSS

    Newbie: Microsft Publisher equivalent?

      I have just started using Adobe Creative Suite and I am wondering which program can easily quickly help me design one page flyers and 4 page brochures - which I use a lot in my work. Which program is the "Publisher equivalent"?

      Also how can I import my current MS Publisher files into Adobe? And where can I get hold of some great templates?

      I am trying to move away from MS and do not wish to have to install it on my new computer.

      Thanks and blessings,

      John Edmiston
        • 1. Re: Newbie: Microsft Publisher equivalent?
          Dov Isaacs Adobe Employee
          There is nothing in the Adobe Creative Suites that is the "Publisher equivalent" - we produce nothing that is so profoundly mediocre!

          Seriously, though, the publishing program of the Creative Suites is Adobe InDesign. Templates are automatically installed with the program itself.

          You cannot directly import Publisher files into InDesign. Your best bet might be to save the Publisher files as either RTF or Word files and place those within InDesign.

          In the interest of full disclosure (besides the fact that I am an Adobe employee), you should be aware that there is a significant learning curve for InDesign if you haven't used other higher end publishing programs such as QuarkXPress, PageMaker, FrameMaker, or Ventura Publisher prior to attempting to use InDesign. Take time to learn the product - it pays off in the quality and the ease of creation and maintenance of the documents you subsequently work on.

          - Dov
          • 2. Re: Newbie: Microsft Publisher equivalent?
            (Aandi_Inston) Community Member
            The other thing to bear in mind is that Adobe don't try to make "one
            program that does everything". That isn't how professionals work, even
            though the consumer market wants to work that way.

            So, InDesign is a tool for layout of pages and putting blocks of text
            on a page. Photoshop is for photos. Illustrator is for drawings. You'd
            expect almost every publisher to use two of these, often three.

            In terms of templates, you'll find a lot less. Again, the reason is
            that these are high end professional tools: professionals don't (in
            general) want to be seen using a publicly available template, they
            want to have something that shows off their own creativity.

            Aandi Inston
            • 3. Re: Newbie: Microsft Publisher equivalent?
              BobLevine UGM-MVPs
              > You cannot directly import Publisher files into InDesign.

              Not natively, but the good folks at Markzware have this available:

              http://www.markzware.com/pub2id/

              Should you go that route, don't expect perfection. The programs are
              lightyears apart and any conversion will require anything from tweaking
              to a complete rebuild.

              Bob
              • 4. Re: Newbie: Microsft Publisher equivalent?
                ratnikh Community Member
                "The other thing to bear in mind is that Adobe don't try to make "one
                program that does everything". That isn't how professionals work, even
                though the consumer market wants to work that way."

                Really? It seems with each iteration that Adobe is making Photoshop closer and closer to exhibiting this very philosophy, of enabling it to "do it all" as regards photo editing, vector drawing, video editing, visual effects, titling, animation, 3D rendering, texture editing, and more. More than half of what it currently does adds pointlessly to its bulk and is quite far from "photo" editing. It would also seem that this very nature is making it more and more bloated and less useful (in regards to speed and ease of use) than it has been in previous versions. Otherwise, if performance and reliability were adequate, these features would be quite welcome.

                I think Adobe should leave the non-photo related "frills" to the makers of plug-ins and concentrate on making the core application perform faster and more reliably, rather than add needless frills that aren't applicable to the purpose of the program.

                As relates to the matter of how professionals work; well, we use what works. If one program successfully did it all, then we'd use it. If several seperate programs are required for the task, then we will use those. CS3 seems to be the attempt to merge all the Adobe applications into one nearly seamless multi-app that does everything. This modern chimera, like the mythical Greek beast, seems to be an ill omen of impending disaster.

                -Mark