jslee@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Lee <jslee>) (02/23/91)
Yes, I know it's not fair to word processors (like Word, WordPerfect, Macwrite, etc) to attempt to compare them to TeX, but when faced with the question: Why should I have to tolerate the fickleness of TeX when I can use Word or WordPerfect? an educational reply must be formulated. I have exactly that task now, and was wondering if someone has already done this. JSLee
fmonaldo@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Monaldo Francis M. S1R x8648) (02/23/91)
I work in an environment were some people use LaTex and some use Work Perfect. In fact some use Word Perfect as an editor to create LaTex files. The reason I use LaTex is because the output of the text, especially equations is significantly improved. The shape and spacing of the characeters in LaTex output is superior. However, the output from WordPerefct seems to be steadily improving and the differences with LaTex output seem to be narrowing. There are also products that allegedly convert WordPerfect file to Tex files. Maybe you should consider this option. I am sure there are some expert Tex or LaTex users that will provide you with more sophisticated reasons for perferring Tex or LaTex. My simple reason, is the quality of output, using the same printers, is still significantly better. Frank Monaldo fmonaldo.jhuapl.edu My humble opinion only.
mike@taumet.com (Michael S. Ball) (02/24/91)
In article <18200@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> jslee@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Lee <jslee>) writes: > >Yes, I know it's not fair to word processors (like Word, WordPerfect, >Macwrite, etc) to attempt to compare them to TeX, but when faced with >the question: > > Why should I have to tolerate the fickleness of TeX when > I can use Word or WordPerfect? The best reasons to use Tex are that it a) simplifies some part of the job which you are doing b) produces higher quality output, and you care about it. We have found the first to be true, particularly for longer documents with significant structure. The arguments for a markup language for long documents are well known, and I won't repeat them. Using our Laserjet II printer, the output produced by Tex is significantly higher in quality than that produced by WordPerfect with Bitstream fonts. I don't know why that is, but it's quite noticable. For anything with equations WordPerfect isn't even close. My friends who do desktop publishing on Mac's and PC's regularly Oh and Ah over our Tex output, even though we paid very little attention to anything but writing the document (an advantage of a markup language.) On the other hand, we use WordPefect for letters, short reports, and similar documents which aren't worth the trouble of using Tex. A completely separate reason applies only if you consider documents to have a high archival value in an electronic form. When was the last time you tried to recover some old wordstar files? What? you don't still have wordstar around? How about MacWrite 10 years from now? My TeX files are still going to be there in ordinary ASCII, and I can edit out the markup if I need to. Of course, this is only a concern for major pieces of documentation. -- Michael S. Ball mike@taumet.com TauMetric Corporation (619)697-7607
nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) (02/24/91)
In article <614@taumet.com> mike@taumet.UUCP (Michael S. Ball) writes: >In article <18200@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> jslee@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Lee <jslee>) writes: >> >>Yes, I know it's not fair to word processors (like Word, WordPerfect, >>Macwrite, etc) to attempt to compare them to TeX, but when faced with >>the question: >> >> Why should I have to tolerate the fickleness of TeX when >> I can use Word or WordPerfect? > >The best reasons to use Tex are that it > >a) simplifies some part of the job which you are doing > >b) produces higher quality output, and you care about it. > >We have found the first to be true, particularly for longer documents >with significant structure. The arguments for a markup language for long >documents are well known, and I won't repeat them. > >Using our Laserjet II printer, the output produced by Tex is significantly >higher in quality than that produced by WordPerfect with Bitstream fonts. >I don't know why that is, but it's quite noticable. For anything with >equations WordPerfect isn't even close. My friends who do desktop publishing >on Mac's and PC's regularly Oh and Ah over our Tex output, even though we >paid very little attention to anything but writing the document (an advantage >of a markup language.) > >On the other hand, we use WordPefect for letters, short reports, and similar >documents which aren't worth the trouble of using Tex. > >A completely separate reason applies only if you consider documents to have >a high archival value in an electronic form. When was the last time you >tried to recover some old wordstar files? What? you don't still have >wordstar around? How about MacWrite 10 years from now? My TeX files >are still going to be there in ordinary ASCII, and I can edit out the >markup if I need to. Of course, this is only a concern for major pieces >of documentation. > >-- >Michael S. Ball mike@taumet.com >TauMetric Corporation (619)697-7607 While I do agree with Micheal concering the points that he raised in his posting, I thought I might share a little exprerience I had with WordPerfect and Latex: I had to write a long text (about 90 pages in 11 pt) with no subdivisions whatsoever. It was a continuous stream of text divided into paragraphs separated by blank lines. In case you do wonder why would anyone do something so stupid, this piece of text is a novel. Furthermore, this is a French piece. I have a French version of WP with a French keyboard (much easier to type in the French characters than in Latex, but again Latex was not designed with French characters in mind.) and after finishing those 90 pages, I decided to use "wp2latex" to get a latex version of the file, since I prefer Tex fonts over Wp fonts. Once this tedious operation perfomed, I tried to Latex the file: "Sorry out of main memory ..." I thought this was because of DOS's memory limitations (I am using emTex BTW, excellent!). I transfered my files over my MIPS UNIX account and ran Latex on the file: "Sorry out of main memory ..." Either I am doing something wrong or Latex (maybe it is Tex) cannot swallow big unformatted chunks of text... unless you change the memory requierement, meaning that eventually you will get a bigger file that will give you back the dreaded: "Sorry out of main memory ..." As a Happy Ending, I went back to my DOS machine and ran blatex, which was able to process the file with no glitch. (Hurray for emtex !) --Naji. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- | Naji Mouawad | nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu | | University |---------------------------------------------------| | Of Waterloo | "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self" |
steve@Advansoft.COM (Steve Savitzky) (02/26/91)
There are several reasons to use TeX that I haven't seen in the responses so far: TeX is a fairly general macro processor. I can use this for generating boilerplate, for special-purpose formatting, as the back end of a program that extracts documentation from the comments in programs, etc. I can set up styles the way I like them, and then forget about them. Some of the things I like to do (like bulletted lists and hanging indents) are hard to do in most word processors. And if I later decide to change something about the style, I don't have to go through all my documents and change *them*. Because TeX is a pure formatter, I can use any text editor I like, for example the one that I am already using for programs. Similarly, I can edit in any SIZE I like. Ever try editing 9-pt text with a word processor? Kind of hard on the eyes. I usually use 12- or 14-pt text on the screen. When I'm editing, I don't have the overhead of the word processor trying to re-format my document at the same time. Also, I don't find TeX "fickle", or inconvenient. I use LaTeX even for tiny jobs like one-page memos and letters. Why learn more than one editor and formatter? -- \ --Steve Savitzky-- \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \ \ steve@advansoft.COM \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<disclaimer.h> \ \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \ \__ steve@arc.UUCP _________________________________________________________
ne201ph@prism.gatech.EDU (Halvorson,Peter J) (02/26/91)
I'll add my 2 cents.
I haven't seen any other word processors that do automatic numbering. Many
of my documents have numbered equations, figures, tables, sections, page
references, equation references, and bibliography references.
I like BiBTeX, a system for accessing a bibliography database. No more
rewriting the bibliography for each paper.
I also use LaTeX for letters and memos. I've made a blank letter with all
the formatting the way I like it, and just have to fill in the text and
recipient's address.
No other program even comes close for equation formatting.
I don't like `hidden codes' which control the text. If you find you want
to change something it's always painful.
LaTeX has many of the advantages of object oriented programming, if that's
something the boss appreciates.
There are two bad points to LaTeX ( at least). A new user often feels that
LaTeX will not let him write the way he wants. Experienced users learn how
to make LaTeX behave. Also, I've found that quite often if LaTeX doesn't
want to do it your way, it may be that your way isn't as good as the LaTeX
method. LaTeX is also lacking in the spell checker/thesaurus department.
--
Peter Halvorson -- Nuclear Engineering Program
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ne201ph
Internet: ne201ph@prism.gatech.edu -- peter@fission.gatech.eduftkcheng@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Felix Cheng) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb24.014010.28426@watmath.waterloo.edu>, nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes: > In article <614@taumet.com> mike@taumet.UUCP (Michael S. Ball) writes: > >In article <18200@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> jslee@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Lee <jslee>) writes: > >> > >>Yes, I know it's not fair to word processors (like Word, WordPerfect, > >>Macwrite, etc) to attempt to compare them to TeX, but when faced with > >>the question: > >> > >> Why should I have to tolerate the fickleness of TeX when > >> I can use Word or WordPerfect? > > > >The best reasons to use Tex are that it > > > >a) simplifies some part of the job which you are doing > > > >b) produces higher quality output, and you care about it. > > > >We have found the first to be true, particularly for longer documents > >with significant structure. The arguments for a markup language for long > >documents are well known, and I won't repeat them. > > > >Using our Laserjet II printer, the output produced by Tex is significantly > >higher in quality than that produced by WordPerfect with Bitstream fonts. > >I don't know why that is, but it's quite noticable. For anything with > >equations WordPerfect isn't even close. My friends who do desktop publishing > >on Mac's and PC's regularly Oh and Ah over our Tex output, even though we > >paid very little attention to anything but writing the document (an advantage > >of a markup language.) > > > >On the other hand, we use WordPefect for letters, short reports, and similar > >documents which aren't worth the trouble of using Tex. > > > >A completely separate reason applies only if you consider documents to have > >a high archival value in an electronic form. When was the last time you > >tried to recover some old wordstar files? What? you don't still have > >wordstar around? How about MacWrite 10 years from now? My TeX files > >are still going to be there in ordinary ASCII, and I can edit out the > >markup if I need to. Of course, this is only a concern for major pieces > >of documentation. > > > >-- > >Michael S. Ball mike@taumet.com > >TauMetric Corporation (619)697-7607 > > While I do agree with Micheal concering the points that he raised > in his posting, I thought I might share a little exprerience > I had with WordPerfect and Latex: > > I had to write a long text (about 90 pages in 11 pt) with no > subdivisions whatsoever. It was a continuous stream of text divided > into paragraphs separated by blank lines. > > In case you do wonder why would anyone do something so stupid, this > piece of text is a novel. > > Furthermore, this is a French piece. I have a French version of WP > with a French keyboard (much easier to type in the French characters > than in Latex, but again Latex was not designed with French > characters in mind.) and after finishing those 90 pages, I decided > to use "wp2latex" to get a latex version of the file, since I prefer > Tex fonts over Wp fonts. > > Once this tedious operation perfomed, I tried to Latex the file: > > "Sorry out of main memory ..." > > I thought this was because of DOS's memory limitations (I am using > emTex BTW, excellent!). I transfered my files over my MIPS UNIX account > and ran Latex on the file: > > "Sorry out of main memory ..." > > Either I am doing something wrong or Latex (maybe it is Tex) cannot > swallow big unformatted chunks of text... unless you change > the memory requierement, meaning that eventually you will get a bigger > file that will give you back the dreaded: > > "Sorry out of main memory ..." > > As a Happy Ending, I went back to my DOS machine and ran blatex, > which was able to process the file with no glitch. (Hurray for emtex !) > > --Naji. > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Naji Mouawad | nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu | > | University |---------------------------------------------------| > | Of Waterloo | "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self" | Try using biglatex or bigtex. These are LaTeX and TeX versions for BIG files. --Felix Cheng