mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (09/29/88)
>Niether of these are always true. With the Mac at least, the screen >cannot come close to displaying what will go one when you print your >document to a laser printer, so WSYWIG is a misnomer. Also, most Mac >processors are so painfully slow at doing anything substantial that it >isn't worth bothering. On the IBM-PC and clones (as well as top end workstations) is IS possible to get essentially true WYSIWYG. There are display available at 1200x1600 (portrait format) (relatively common) up to 3000x4000 (at 300 dot per inch and not common at all). It would be easy to port previewers for TeX (or other formatters) to these. Indeed, I would have done it for one of the 1200x1600 ones except that I have not bben able to find one that will work on my silly PS/2! I did a test to see how slow it would have been at 1200 x1600 on my 386, and it would have been quit tolerable (assuming that the display was memory mapped). And there is nothing except commercial inertia to prevent having this for the point and click programs. Doug McDonald
llk@lzfme.att.com (L.KELLEY) (09/30/88)
In article <47700025@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Niether of these are always true. With the Mac at least, the screen > >cannot come close to displaying what will go one when you print your > >document to a laser printer, so WSYWIG is a misnomer. Also, most Mac > >processors are so painfully slow at doing anything substantial that it > >isn't worth bothering. > Have you seen or tried the Interleaf system on a Sun workstation? It looks pretty good. Linda Kelley