jpearce@uk.ac.ucl.cs (11/12/88)
We are looking for MAC software suitable for the processing of academic papers and theses. With the exception of FWP none of the standard products seem to offer the citation and bibliographic support necessary. Has anyone any information on the avaiability of TeX and LaTex which I am lead to believe offer the required functionality. Or any other software if it comes to that. John R. Pearce jpearce@uk.ac.ucl.cs P.S. Is there any news concerning a new version of FWP Computer Science Dept., University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT.
c60c-3bq@e260-3b.berkeley.edu (11/20/88)
In article <71@ucl-cs.UUCP> jpearce@uk.ac.ucl.cs writes: > >We are looking for MAC software suitable for the processing of >academic papers and theses. With the exception of FWP none of >the standard products seem to offer the citation and >bibliographic support necessary. > >John R. Pearce > >jpearce@uk.ac.ucl.cs You might want to try EndNote by Oxford and Associates (I think) which adds bibliographic capabilities to Word, MacWrite, and WriteNow. I would recommend WriteNow 2.0, since it's easy to learn and much more powerful than the older version. I have no connection with T/Maker other than being a satisfied customer, and I don't even have a copy of EndNote although I saw a beta version demo'ed. --- Alex masquerading as B.T.
sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) (11/26/88)
in article <71@ucl-cs.UUCP>, jpearce@uk.ac.ucl.cs says: > > > We are looking for MAC software suitable for the processing of > academic papers and theses. With the exception of FWP none of > the standard products seem to offer the citation and > bibliographic support necessary. > > Has anyone any information on the avaiability of TeX and LaTex > which I am lead to believe offer the required functionality. > Or any other software if it comes to that. > > I agree with you about FW. It really is the only package that can handle citations and bibliographies as required by academics. TeX can also do formatting (and is especially good for tables), but it has a major drawback - it's not WYSIWYG. Formatting is done by placing codes in the text; you can't see what the document will look like until it's printed (though some environments do have a screen preview module). Personally, I think the WYSIWYG environment is more important to an academic than any additional formatting that TeX might bring. FW's dynamic numbering of citations is exactly what most academics need. I find that, bugs and all, it's far better for my needs than any other word processor on the market. I use it for scholarly papers and for writing books. Admittedly, the outlining is not very sturdy (try using the arrow keys in an outline and watch the program hang) and you can corrupt a document so that it cannot be opened successfully by placing sidebars in a certain configuration (if this has happened to you - send me email and we'll compare notes...). Nonetheless, it does the job in an admirable fashion. Jan Harrington, sysop Scholastech Telecommunications UUCP: husc6!amcad!stech!sysop or allegra!stech!sysop BITNET: JHARRY@BENTLEY ******************************************************************************** Miscellaneous profundity: "No matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Banzai ********************************************************************************
norman@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) (11/27/88)
Pardon my ignorance, but why the fuss over which word processor best
supports academic writing? In my experience, the hardest part about
writing is the writing itself -- generating the ideas in coherent
fashion. No word processor helps with that. As for the problems of
formatting, well yes, you need something that formats, and especially
that does footnotes properly, but almost everything else can be done
by anything on the market.
There are religous arguments about word processors: vi versus emacs,
TeX (and its derivative packages) versus troff or scribe, FullWrite
versus Microsoft Word versus what-have-you. Like all religions, they
all offer much the same eventual power, even if the means to the
endpoints differ. Follow your own preferences.
Seriously: I have done an informal study comparing emacs and vi and
found that equivalent in power, but quite different in style. I have
written books (including one in camera-ready form) and professional
articles (yes, with citations and footnotes and figures) with vi,
emacs, troff, Microsoft Word (versions 1 and 3), and my students have
tried FullWrite as well -- my students have done dissertations with
vi-troff and with Microsoft Word (dissertations probably offer the
most stringent formatting requirements). My colleagues use scribe and
TeX. So stop worrying and just get one.
As for refrence formats: I have tried various automatic schemes, and I
have found it just as easy to have one big file in which I keep all my
references, in alphabetical form, in proper format (APA style for my
usage). Then when I need a reference, I open up the file, and copy
and paste it into the current document at the right spot. I even do
the equivalent with emacs-troff, even though automatic refencing
programs exist.
So, I conclude you should just make a list of the minimum features you
need (I gave my list in the first paragraph), and go out and get
something -- almost anything. Whichever you start off with you will
eventually learn well enough that you will come to like it, even as
you always wonder if another one might be better. But don't waste your
time switching: As I said, the hard part is the writing.
I personally use Microsoft Word, and I am a heavy user of its styles,
spelling corection, hyphenator, its batch previewer (ugh), footnoting
capabilities, and even its outlining capability (for which I have made
the styles match my heading requirments). But I also dislike many of
its properties. I am not recommending this over others: I am simply
saying it does the job.
don norman
Donald A. Norman [ danorman@ucsd.edu BITNET: danorman@ucsd ]
Department of Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093 USA
UNIX: {gatech,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!ucsd!danorman
[e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and all e-mail addresses.]sho@pur-phy (Sho Kuwamoto) (11/27/88)
In article <685@stech.UUCP> sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) writes:
<in article <71@ucl-cs.UUCP>, jpearce@uk.ac.ucl.cs says:
<<
<< We are looking for MAC software suitable for the processing of
<< academic papers and theses. [FWP has some nice features...]
<
<I agree with you about FW. It really is the only package that can handle
<citations and bibliographies as required by academics. TeX can also
<do formatting (and is especially good for tables), but it has a major
<drawback - it's not WYSIWYG. Formatting is done by placing codes in the
<text; you can't see what the document will look like until it's printed
<(though some environments do have a screen preview module).
<
<Personally, I think the WYSIWYG environment is more important to an academic
<than any additional formatting that TeX might bring.
I basically agree, but it really depends on what field you're in. If you
do a lot of equtions, TeX is really nice. For me, at least, it's a real
hassle going into one of these equation DA's, and the output is not nearly
as nice looking.
-Sho