stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) (10/20/87)
We're considering upgrading from Documenter's Workbench Release 1.0
to DWB 2.0. Does anyone know what the differences are ??
I've heard a rumor that the ditroff with 2.0 is much (??) faster.
Richard Stevens
Health Systems International, New Haven, CT
{ uunet | ihnp4 } ! hsi ! stevenskg@elan.UUCP (Ken Greer) (10/21/87)
in article <705@hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) says: > > We're considering upgrading from Documenter's Workbench Release 1.0 > to DWB 2.0. Does anyone know what the differences are ?? > I've heard a rumor that the ditroff with 2.0 is much (??) faster. We ran benchmarks across the board from PCs to MicroVaxs to Mainframes and DWB 2.0 is indeed 2X faster than DWB 1.0! It's also got: 1. An improved EQN with some new goodies like file include and parameterized macros. 2. An improved PIC with programability (for loops, etc.) 3. A new program GRAP for plots and graphs (replaces all those weird plotting tools you used to get with UNIX.) 4. Tools SUBJ and NDX for creating an index! 5. Nroff has ASCII terminal tables -- no more compiling tabxyz.c -- you can modify them yourself easily now. 6. Troff is mostly unchanged (except for being twice as fast.) The only addition I recall is the \s(nn to set point size to nn. WARNING: If you get DWB 2.0 from AT&T expect a very buggy product and no support for any reasonable printers. You would be wise to go to a third party that *supports* DWB and *laser printers* (welcome to the 1980s!) Hope I don't sound too much like an add, but we are one such company. For info on our package Eroff, contact... Elan Computer Group, Inc. 410 Cambridge Avenue, Suite A Palo Alto, CA 94306 415-322-2450 Ken Greer {ames,hplabs}!elan!kg
ralph@ralmar.UUCP (Ralph Barker) (10/24/87)
In article <705@hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes: > We're considering upgrading from Documenter's Workbench Release 1.0 > to DWB 2.0. Does anyone know what the differences are ?? > I've heard a rumor that the ditroff with 2.0 is much (??) faster. Release 2.0 is substantially faster than earlier versions. Just how much faster depends somewhat on the formatting commands contained in the file. The tests which Elan Computer Group ran range from about 40% to 60% faster, if memory serve me. 2.0 also includes a number of enhancements to PIC and some of the other preprocessors. Sorry that I don't have all of the details handy. 2.0 is *definitely* worth the upgrade, however. It FLIES in comparison! -- Ralph Barker, RALMAR Business Systems, 640 So Winchester Blvd, San Jose,CA 95128 uucp: ...{pyramid, sun}!amdahl!unixprt----\ !ralmar!ralph ...{ucbvax,hplabs}!sun!idi---/ Voice: (408) 248-8649
romwa@utgpu.UUCP (10/25/87)
In article <230@elan.UUCP>, kg@elan.UUCP (Ken Greer) writes: > in article <705@hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) says: > > > > We're considering upgrading from Documenter's Workbench Release 1.0 > > to DWB 2.0. Does anyone know what the differences are ?? > > I've heard a rumor that the ditroff with 2.0 is much (??) faster. > > We ran benchmarks across the board from PCs to MicroVaxs to > Mainframes and DWB 2.0 is indeed 2X faster than DWB 1.0! > > It's also got: > > 1. An improved EQN with some new goodies like file include > and parameterized macros. > 2. An improved PIC with programability (for loops, etc.) > 3. A new program GRAP for plots and graphs (replaces all > those weird plotting tools you used to get with UNIX.) > 4. Tools SUBJ and NDX for creating an index! > 5. Nroff has ASCII terminal tables -- no more compiling tabxyz.c -- > you can modify them yourself easily now. > 6. Troff is mostly unchanged (except for being twice as fast.) > The only addition I recall is the \s(nn to set point size to nn. > SoftQuad of Toronto has what I consider to be the best Troff on the market. Yes, I have tried many flavors including Eroff. This product has all the of the above with some enhancements which make typesetting a real joy. First, there is a 'trace' command, which outputs every macro and troff call as it is encountered. Further debugging tools are included. The capability to name macros with names up to 14 characters also makes a potentially cryptic source file quite readable. There is Postscript, HP, and other laser printer support available. I use the program only on Xenix, but is available on a host of other hosts :-). Their support has been first class and their people have gone out of their way to answer all of my questions. My feeling is that SoftQuad really understands the whole process of getting information to print--not just the workings of troff. SoftQuad Inc. (416) 963-8337 Mark T. Dornfeld Computer Systems Department Royal Ontario Museum Toronto utgpu!rom!mark
dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) (11/07/87)
I'm in need (desperately) of a program that will convert postscript files to an alternate form (bitmapped raster prefereably). Is there anything like this in existance, or something like it in the works? Douglas Luce