rtp1@tank.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert) (02/22/90)
I started using Word some time ago basically because it was the only
word processor with a built in equation facility. I don't like
using the DA's because you have to switch around for editing,
and do something different for "display" eqns vs. equations
embedded in the text.
But..
Equation handling in Word STINKS and Microsoft doesn't seem to have
made the slightest effort to improve things. Their software group
deserves some kind of genius of stupidity award for coming up with a
markup language which is even more obscure than TeX, but still
produces amateurish output. For example, to get a simple fraction
like 1/(x**2 + y**2) (but properly formatted to look pretty, you
type /f(1,x^2 + y^2) , where the caret represents the Mac superscript
key sequence. Not too bad. But the output is horrible. The bottom of
the 1 runs right into the fraction bar, and there is an ugly gap
above the denominator. Sometimes you can detect this on screen and
tweak it, but often you don't notice until you print. So much for
WYSIWYG.
I am really jealous of the beauty of TeX output. I don't really
want to write everything in TeX; having to use a previewer to see
equations is bush, and tables are a nightmare. I like to see what I'm
writing when I'm writing it. But when it comes to embedding an
equation, Microsoft should be able to do as well as TeX, since the
algorithms are all published. I hear Expressionist has a TeX interface.
Any comments? Does anybody have any way to make Word behave better?
Please reply by email, as I can't keep up with comp.sys.mac
.gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (02/23/90)
> But when it comes to embedding an equation, Microsoft should be able > to do as well as TeX, since the algorithms are all published. This is unfair. TeX was written with a singular purpose: To produce good mathematics. MS-Word was written with other purposes in mind, and equations were added as an afterthought. Knuth's students did the research necessary to bring TeX to you. They knew the algorithms because they did the research. I'd like to see you decipher the algorithms for TeX. Microsoft has to contend with the 72dpi assumption, shitty math fonts from adobe, WYSWYG display, and several other problems. You haven't mentioned which printer you were using; this can make a big difference. I understand Microsoft is working to improve equations, and Microsoft developers have even forwarded my own comments to the product manager in charge of equations. Microsoft has already fixed the fraction bars to be slimmer on laser printers -- a big improvement. Maybe if you could provide some constructive criticism, your voice would be heard. Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies
simon@alberta.uucp (Simon Tortike) (02/23/90)
In article <7748@tank.uchicago.edu> rtp1@tank.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert) writes: >I started using Word some time ago basically because it was the only >word processor with a built in equation facility. I don't like ......... lots of groans about equation processing. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I use TeXtures from Blue Sky because I don't mind a little masochism with my desire for as-perfect-as-possible mathematical typesetting. The previewing is not as bad as one might think, although a handy laserwriter is probably a must. If TeX is too much like self-flagellation, try MathType (latest is v2.0 or thereabouts) as an equation-preparing DA. It inserts all spaces for you, like TeX, and can generate bold and italic Greek, something a colleague could not make Expressionist do. I have used both MathType and Expressionist, and prefer MathType. I am sure Expressionist has a few features not available in MathType, but it was the ones missing from Expressionist which bothered me the most. I see lots of theses prepared with Word, with or without the aid of Expressionist or MathType, and the mathematics are OK if you are not too perfectionist, but the poorer the math typesetting, the more difficult it is to follow the equations. Try following some of the published lecture notes on sparse matrix algebra that were typed using a typewriter, to see what I mean. It depends what you want the reader to feel! ------------------- W. Simon Tortike, | tel : 403/492-3338 Dept of Mining, Metallurgical | fax : 403/492-7219 and Petroleum Engineering, | CDNnet : simon@cs.UAlberta.CA University of Alberta, | uucp : simon@alberta.uucp Edmonton, AB, CANADA T6G 2G6. |