beausol@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ray Beausoleil) (04/15/90)
As I promised, here is a summary of the *many* (>50) detailed
responses to my posting on Macintosh versions of TeX. As I suspected,
the two most popular implementations of TeX are Textures and OzTeX.
Textures is written and published by:
Blue Sky Research
534 S.W. Third Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97204
(800) 622-8398, or (503) 222-9571.
The list price of Textures is $495; it is apparently available from
MacWarehouse [(800) 255-6227] for $375, and can still be obtained for
much less through some academic purchasing programs. LaTeX and
additional fonts may cost extra (see below).
OzTeX is available by anonymous ftp from watmsg.waterloo.edu
(129.97.129.9); look in the folder "/pub/oztex."
In addition to the topics I covered with my questions, several users
of both products wrote that Textures works much better in the background
than OzTeX.
I've collected the answers to my six questions first. Then I discuss
alternatives to TeX.
(1) Is there an integrated text editor with reasonable features?
In principle, this is an important question only if your Mac does not
have enough memory to run Multifinder. OzTeX does not contain an editor,
but the package does include the SigmaEdit DA. Virtually all OzTeX users
felt that SigmaEdit was inadequate for all but the simplest text editing
tasks; some recommended McSink instead. (Personally, I have found McSink
7.0 to be somewhat limited and idiosyncratic. It is the shareware
version of the Vantage DA, and can be obtained by anonymous ftp from
sumex-aim.stanford.edu (36.44.0.6); look in the folder "/info-mac/da.")
If you can run MultiFinder, then any word processor that can save text
files will do.
Textures does contain a text editor, although it apparently has a
feature set limited to the Mac Toolbox calls (cut, copy, paste, etc.).
Again, there are other DAs and word processors that can fill the bill
adequately. However, you *may* need to use the Textures editor if you
would like to be able to preview your document in "real time."
(2) Can the document be previewed on the monitor? (If so, then the loss
of WYSIWYG may become bearable!)
Both Textures and OzTeX have the ability to preview documents on the
Mac screen, although everyone seemed to feel that this feature was
better implemented in Textures than in OzTeX. Both applications allow
you to zoom in by a factor of four (approximately LaserWriter
resolution). One major advantage of the Textures previewer is the
ability to view a page as soon as it has been typeset, so that you don't
have to finish the entire document before proofing. I believe that you
must use the Textures editor for this, but I am not certain.
(3) Can the document be printed on an ImageWriter II for proofing?
Currently, only Textures can print on the ImageWriter II, although
rumor has it that the next version of OzTeX (which currently supports
only PostScript printers) will have this feature also. Applications such
as Freedom of the Press or MacRIP will allow you to print postscript on
a quickdraw printer, however, and at least one person, Jim Walker
(jwwalker@cs.scarolina.edu) said that he is developing an ImageWriter II
driver for OzTeX. There was considerable disagreement among the
responses about the quality of typeset TeX documents printed on the
ImageWriter II. I suspect that it can't be any worse than
WriteNow/Expressionist on the ImageWriter.
(4) Is LaTeX available? (I hear rumors that LaTeX is the most capable
environment for scientific word processing.)
Apparently, LaTeX is a particular collection of formatting macros that
can be "compiled" within TeX to provide customization of your
environment. Other formats, such as AmSTeX are also available. Many
users believe that LaTeX is much easier to use than plain TeX.
OzTeX comes with several formats, including LaTeX. There are
apparently several ways to obtain LaTeX for Textures. First of all, you
can obtain it directly from the publisher for $75 or less (including the
book "LaTeX" by Lamport). Secondly, you may be able to use the OzTeX
version of LaTeX directly (after compilation)! Thirdly, you can download
the PD LaTeX source and compile it yourself. One user suggested
anonymous ftp from score.stanford.edu, but I haven't been able to log on
to this address yet.
(5) Is drawing difficult? Can it be done at all? Can PostScript or EPSF
code be embedded in the document? Does this eliminate the ability for
screen and/or ImageWriter proofing?
I was surprised to learn that TeX's drawing capabilities are quite
limited! Absolutely *nobody* had kind words to say about TeX or LaTeX in
this regard.
However, Textures allows Mac EPSF, PICT, and bitmap drawings and
paintings to be integrated into the TeX document. The Textures previewer
will display all but raw PostScript on the screen. The answers to this
question provided by OzTeX users were somewhat less definite; apparently
both PICT and EPSF pictures can be included in the document, but I do
not believe that they can be previewed. PostScript can be included in
both Textures and OzTeX using the "\special" command. My general overall
impression from the mail I received is that Textures is quite superior
to OzTeX in graphics-handling.
Below I discuss Mac graphics programs for scientific applications in
some detail.
(6) Is the Macintosh TeX document transferrable to another system
environment without significant modification?
Basically, TeX is a programming "language" that uses text source
files, with implementations on many different machines. There will be
slight variations in these implementations (just as there are in C
compilers), but as a rule TeX documents generated on one computer should
print the same on any other. TeX compiles the source file and produces a
".dvi" (device independent) file that is supposed to print the same on
the any system. OzTeX generates the ".dvi" files directly, while
Textures uses a DA to create them.
Apparently, the only exceptions are pictures and fonts. Clearly,
QuickDraw PICTs will not transfer from a Macintosh to some other
machine. The "\special" command also varies from one implementation to
the next, so PostScript files which have been included using this method
may not be transferrable.
Unfortunately, I am somewhat confused about the use of fonts in
Textures and OzTeX. Apparently, OzTeX includes standard TeX "pk" font
files (whatever they are), allowing you to download new fonts from any
source and to transfer files easily from one implementation to another.
However, I believe that Textures uses standard Mac font (suitcase)
files, making them much larger than those of OzTeX. (I assume that I
would not actually have to use the Font/DA Mover to place these fonts in
the system file, but I'm not sure.) I am not sure which fonts are
included with Textures, but Blue Sky sells the complete Computer Modern
font set for either $79 or $100; you'll need either 10 or 22 Mb of hard
disk to store them! (I am not trying to make Textures' font handling
capabilities seem inferior; on the contrary, several users praised its
font support.)
In their responses, many people asked questions about my current setup
(WriteNow 2.2, Expressionist 2.03, Igor 1.12, and Canvas 2.1). I'll
address those here, and add some things that I've learned about pictures
during the last several days.
A couple of people were surprised that I was dissatisfied with Canvas.
As I claimed in my original posting, I believe that the ideal Macintosh
drawing package should (at least): (1) allow equations from
Expressionist to be pasted into a picture without mangling them; (2)
allow pictures to be transferred to WriteNow using the clipboard; and
(3) use QuickDraw for screen display and ImageWriter II proofing, *as
well as* PostScript for LaserWriter printing. The catch with Canvas is
(3). Most of the pictures that I include in my technical documents are
schematics of laser optical layouts. I have tried to take advantage of
one of Canvas' features: the ability to zoom in and place objects
accurately at almost arbitrary resolutions. Unfortunately, when you
paste *any* QuickDraw PICT into WriteNow (or any other word processor
that I know), the objects themselves (lines, circle, etc.), which are
PostScript primitives, are drawn by the LaserWriter at 300 dpi, but they
are placed on the paper with only 72 dpi resolution because the word
processor *turns off* high resolution object placement before it prints
the document! As a result, the objects that I have arranged carefully in
Canvas are shuffled slightly. In addition, as I stated in my original
post, while I have been able to use the new Canvas Separator to convert
PICTs to EPSF format, (1) the document cannot be fully proofed on the
ImageWriter II because the picture has no QuickDraw representation (it
also appears as a gray rectangle on the monitor); (2) Expressionist
equations are stripped out during the conversion (although this could be
an Expressionist problem); and (3) the picture is merely a PostScript
rendering of a QuickDraw PICT. (In Canvas, this means that lines drawn
45 degrees from the horizontal are sqrt(2) thicker than either
horizontal or vertical lines, since the QuickDraw pen is a nonrotating
rectangle. This causes some rotated and skewed objects to appear as
though they have been drawn in "boldface," as though they are emphasized
in some way.) Perhaps I am too picky, but I want what I want.
Bruce Long kindly pointed out to me that Cricket Draw is not defunct.
For some reason, neither MacConnection nor The Mac Zone are shipping it
now, but it is still alive and kicking. It can be purchased from
ComputerWare in California [(800) 326-0092] for $215. I found the
Computer Associates/Cricket technical support number [(215) 889-0267],
and found out that the incredibly long awaited upgrade to Cricket Draw
1.1.1 will be called Cricket Stylist, and is due sometime "in the
future." It is supposed to be *much* enhanced over Draw. It is not clear
what the upgrade policy will be. I have used Cricket Draw in the past,
and with one exception, I liked it very much. The exception: it didn't
import PICTs correctly. Expressionist equations were badly shuffled when
they were pasted into a Cricket Draw document, and text in imported PICT
files was also trashed. However, since Cricket Draw had the ability to
generate subscripts and superscripts in text boxes (something Canvas 2.1
can't do yet), the Expressionist problem wasn't a major one.
Significantly, Cricket Draw was able to generate raw PostScript *and*
save EPSF files. Since the numerous detailed responses that I received
have convinced me that "device independence" is the way to go, I feel
that it is crucial to find some way to produce high-quality images that
can be transferred from one platform to another. Hence, I think that it
is important to figure out some way of including PostScript (raw or
EPSF) in TeX documents in some "dvi" way. While Cricket Draw is
certainly not the only answer here, it may turn out to be the most
convenient.
Did you know that you can write raw PostScript versions of *any*
printable Mac file directly onto your hard disk? I learned about this
feature in the documentation for a $20 shareware utility recently posted
to sumex-aim.stanford.edu. (Anonymous ftp to 36.44.0.6; look for /info-
mac/util/add-lprep-12.hqx.) According to the documentation:
"Apple's LaserWriter system allows a user to get a complete PostScript
disk file (including the library code from the "Laser Prep" file) by
hitting Command-K WHILE MOUSING DOWN on OK from the LaserWriter Print
dialog, or a file without the library code by hitting Option-F. Option-K
and Command-F may do one or the other (??)."
In fact, you *must* click on the "OK" button and hold down Option-F or
Option-K while releasing the mouse button. The PostScript file is saved
as text to your disk with a name like "PostScript 0." The files produced
in this way are *huge*; they are much bigger than the corresponding
translation file produced by Cricket Draw itself. (By the way, I
couldn't tell the difference between the file generated with Option-F
and the one produced by Option-K.) I'm not sure why this is so. Why use
AddLPrep? Again, from the documentation:
"Unfortunately, the Laser Prep code includes a few features that make
the Command-K file unusable on certain non-Apple laser printer systems,
such as a DEC ScriptPrinter connected to a VAX. The AddLPrep program
remedies this situation by adding a modified version of the PostScript
code from the Laser Prep file to a PostScript file created by hitting
Option-F. The output file produced by AddLPrep is thus suitable for
downloading to any PostScript printer or typesetter."
This utility increases the size of the raw PostScript file still
further. I have no idea whether or not all of this is really necessary,
but I will continue to explore PostScript and EPSF with TeX.
Several people asked me to compare Igor with other commercial plotting
packages, particularly Kaleidagraph. Alas, I have never used
Kaleidagraph, but I have used Cricket Graph and Passage II. In my
opinion, there is absolutely no comparison. Igor is astonishingly fast
and powerful; the recent MacWorld (MacUser?) review did not do it
justice. Unlike Cricket Graph, Igor will allow you to plot any equation
of your choice; it has extensive macro capabilities; and, if you are a C
programmer, you can write XOPs (similar to XCMDs in HyperCard) that
extend Igor's capabilities as far as you need. The current version does
not do 3D or contour plots automatically. It has a slightly steeper
learning curve for the beginner than either Cricket Graph or Passage,
but it is worth the effort. I have had no problem whatsoever producing
publication-quality graphs with it, graphs can be pasted directly into
WriteNow (be sure to use smoothing for best results), and the technical
support provided by the authors is outstanding. Igor sells for $195, and
as far as I know it can only be obtained from:
WaveMetrics
P.O. Box 2088
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
(503) 635P8849
Another response asked for a comparison between Expressionist and
MacEqn. I have not used MacEqn since 1988, so I can't provide a
feature-for-feature comparison. However, I find the Expressionist
interface extremely intuitive, equations can be copied from the word
processor back into Expressionist for modification, Expressionist can
generate TeX code directly (although this may not be a big deal if the
Textures and OzTeX previewers are so good, and you are using LaTeX), and
Expressionist interfaces beautifully with Theorist. (Caveat emptor! I am
a Theorist beta-tester, so I am not impartial.) Expressionist can be
used as either an application or a DA.
Finally, two people pointed out that Interleaf Technical Publisher is
currently available, and FrameMaker will be available soon. Apparently,
these packages have migrated to the Macintosh from workstations and
mainframes, and sport WYSIWYG interfaces. The suggested retail price for
either is $995, though, so they will have to be all but voice-activated
before I can justify the cost. They will also require a Mac II with 4 Mb
of memory.
Again, thank you all for your responses to my original post.
Presumably, this summary has become much too long; I will try to be less
verbose in the future. Based on the opinions of those who responded, I
will certainly download OzTeX, and I will almost certainly buy Textures
if I can find a reasonable discount. I encourage you all to continue to
discuss the general topic of TeX graphics in this newsgroup. I will
purchase Cricket Stylist when it becomes available, and I will post my
opinion of its usefulness.
Ray Beausoleil (beausoleil@ee.washington.edu)