brandon@wa4mei.UUCP (Brandon Rhodes) (09/04/90)
How can I get the most recent version of TeX besides ftp, which my site does not yet support? ======================================================================== BBBBB CCCCC RRRRRR Brandon Craig Rhodes BB BB CC CC RR RR BBBBBB CC RRRRRR UUCP: {gatech,emory}!wa4mei!brandon BB BB CC CC RR RR Available on: INDEX System TBBS [404] 951-1540 BBBBBB CCCCC RR RR ACCUG BBS [404] 642-9842 ========================================================================
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/04/90)
In article <815@wa4mei.UUCP>, brandon@wa4mei.UUCP (Brandon Rhodes) writes... >How can I get the most recent version of TeX besides ftp, which my >site does not yet support? For what system do you want it? I'll assume Unix since that makes up the bulk of the Usenet readership and direct you to the University of Washington Unix TeX distribution: TeX for Unix is available from the University of Washington. It is up-to-date (TeX 3.0, MF 2.0), contains detailed installation instructions and support is available if you have problems. Money from the distribution tapes goes towards funding the support hotline and future Unix TeX development. For more information, contact Elisabeth Tachikawa, elisabet@max.acs.washington.edu If you're looking for TeX for another system, post again (note: do _not_ send the query directly to me or I'll respond with a polite note indicating that I cannot respond to direct inquiries unless they're paid for.) -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info
ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax) (09/04/90)
In article <8260@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@sif.claremont.edu writes: >In article <815@wa4mei.UUCP>, brandon@wa4mei.UUCP (Brandon Rhodes) writes... >>How can I get the most recent version of TeX besides ftp, which my >>site does not yet support? > >For what system do you want it? That's a pretty good question...is version 3 available in a messdos port yet? I'm playing around with UltraScript PC, trying to get some experience with PostScript, but I get the feeling I ought to implement TeX on this '286 box, too. Looks like it's time for a bigger disk, too.... ;^) Thankee, d -- "If caving in the Guads is like heaven, caving in Lechuguilla is like having sex with the gods when you get there." -- Dan Legnini, Windy City Grotto, 1990 Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/04/90)
In article <1990Sep4.041616.11547@ariel.unm.edu>, ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax) writes... >In article <8260@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@sif.claremont.edu writes: >>In article <815@wa4mei.UUCP>, brandon@wa4mei.UUCP (Brandon Rhodes) writes... >>>How can I get the most recent version of TeX besides ftp, which my >>>site does not yet support? >>For what system do you want it? >That's a pretty good question...is version 3 available in a messdos port yet? >I'm playing around with UltraScript PC, trying to get some experience with >PostScript, but I get the feeling I ought to implement TeX on this '286 box, >too. >Looks like it's time for a bigger disk, too.... ;^) OK, time for the periodic Jon Radel plug... Public domain software for IBM PCs (and I believe he is beginning to carry stuff for other small machines as well) is available from Jon Radel. He has the five public domain versions of TeX and numerous other items. For more information write to Jon Radel P.O. Box 2276 Reston, VA 22090-0276 (USA) or send e-mail to jradel@hmcvax.claremont.edu (a new e-mail address... this one is sanctioned by the authorities so is guaranteed to be around a while). OK, now the various versions of TeX. I have little direct experience with the bulk of these packages (the only one I've used in for actual work is PCTeX and that not much), so I may make mistakes. The information is gathered mostly from documentation, advertisements (I assume they tell the truth) and discussion on the net, so if anyone has any corrections, please let me know and I'll correct this (I'm actually going to start keeping this as a file instead of re-doing it from memory each time the question is asked.) Note that DVI drivers included with one system can generally be used with any of the TeXs listed (e.g., one could use the emTeX drivers with PubliCTeX, say). Packages are listed in alphabetical order by name. Unless otherwise noted, commercial versions are available from TUG. Commmontex. Jon Radel reports that the PC version does not pass trip. In any event, it's only around v2.1 (or at least that's the latest version Jon has been able to get working under MS-DOS according to the last catalog I got from him). I suspect the whole effort was quietly abandoned with the advent of WEB2C. DosTeX. This is a shareware implementation of TeX. I'm not sure if it's been updated to TeX 3.0 or not. It includes the ability to make preloaded executables for LaTeX, AmSTeX, etc. There is also a DosMF. emTeX. In addition to TeX, there is also a version of MF, "big" versions of both TeX and MF (internal arrays have been modified to permit main memory arrays greater than the normal maximum... I forget what the sizes are, but they are slower) and I think there are also different executables for 286 and 386 based systems. This is public domain. Also distributed with it are numerous device drivers (I forget exactly what's included, but I will be spending some time in the next week pulling this apart so I can list it in the drivers column) and a picture editor and possibly a few other items. Includes TeX 3.0 and MF 2.0. $\mu$-TeX. (Formerly Micro-TeX). I don't really know too much about this since Arbortext hasn't seemed to be pushing it very much in their TUGboat advertising. The thing that sets it apart, as near as I can tell, is the fact that one can integrate it with an editor and previewer for an Amiga TeX-like environment. It runs $249 and is TeX 3.0. PCTeX. This is the oldest version of TeX for the PC (just barely edging out $\mu$-TeX (nee MicroTeX) for the title). The current release comes in three incarnations. The normal TeX (v3.0) which has 128K of main memory and is roughly the same speed as sbTeX and emTeX or slightly faster (I saw a speed chart from the DAnTe newsletter in College Station which compared the speeds of these and a few others which is how I know this. I believe they compared the versions of this spring and Personal TeX claims that they've boosted the speed by 10%, so I guess that it may now be slightly faster, I don't know for sure though), a version of TeX for the 386 with 128K of main memory and "Big" TeX for the 386 with 240K of main memory. They also have a version of MF. Prices are $249, $299 and $349 for the three versions of TeX. PubliCTeX. This is the only WEB version of TeX for PC in the public domain that includes source. It's also slower than molasses (I'm very sure it was at the bottom of the DAnTe newsletter chart). On the other hand, if you want to hack with TeX's insides and don't want to spend money... SBTeX. I think this version of TeX was marginally faster than emTeX although the last upgrade to emTeX may have changed that (hint to someone out there: it would be really neat to see a real comparison of the various versions of TeX for the PC in a future issue of TUGboat). This distribution is a minimal distribution rather than the hefty package distributed with emTeX, so you'll be getting more things rather than clearing things out. TeX 4 386. (Actually the 4 should be superscripted, but oh well). The ad says "A 'fat TeX' for 386 machines with 4 MEG of RAM". There was a more detailed note, but I didn't think to take it, not realizing until I was on the plane back to LA that they actually had a _different_ TeX implementation available. I assume it's TeX 3.0 and it costs $50. This may not be available from TUG so I'll include the vendor's address: TeXplorators Corporation; 3701 W. Alabama; Suite 450-273; Houston, TX 77027 (USA). TeXPLUS. This is a rewrite of TeX in CWEB. I think they include source. They do have TeX 3.0 and it may be a "big" TeX. I don't know anyone who uses this (although someone must or they wouldn't be able to afford the big ads in TUGboat). Included in the purchase price are HP and PostScript drivers and an editor ($195, $295 with a previewer). TurboTeX. This is an automated translation into C of TeX. The package includes TeX, MF, a few-odd drivers and some good documentation (Kinch, the creator of the package, makes a persuasive argument against WYSIWYG). It is slow, but a decent tack to take if you want to hack TeX since it's not too expensive with source option and at least faster than PubliC TeX (I would choose this over TeXPLUS for PC TeX source hacking since the code you'll be working with is that actually _in_ TeX the book, rather than the CWEB translation. You might choose otherwise). $150, $300 w/source. There are also a few other versions of TeX which I don't have information on hand for that are offered for prices in the $30-$150 range. I suspect these are largely repackaged PD versions. Anyway, since all I have handy is the TUG price list and some fliers from the TUG meeting, I don't have any information on those. The address for TUG is: TeX Users Group P.O. Box 9506 Providence, RI 02940 401-751-7760 tug@math.ams.com Part of the costs of Jon Radel's efforts is subsidized by TUG. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (09/17/90)
On 4 Sep 90 06:27:57 GMT, dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) said: dhosek> Commontex. Jon Radel reports that the PC version does not pass dhosek> trip. This is very strange -- the UNIX version does, but for minor differences in the last few digits of some floating point numbers etc... I think that the trip test itself is a disgrace however, because it essentially requires any "conforming" TeX implementation to have the same extremely baroque user interface as the Pascal/WEB one. Testing for conformity should be based on ensuring that the input language accepted is the same, and the DVI output produces similar-looking printouts. I had considered giving CommonTeX 2.1 a more terse and elegant user interface, but did not, because then the coveted (if absurdly defined) trip-test compatibility would have been lost. dhosek> In any event, it's only around v2.1 (or at least that's the dhosek> latest version Jon has been able to get working under MS-DOS dhosek> according to the last catalog I got from him). CommonTeX release numbers bear no relationship to Pascal/WEB TeX ones; release 2.1 is essentially equivalent to Pascal/WEB TeX 2.9. dhosek> I suspect the whole effort was quietly abandoned with the advent dhosek> of WEB2C. This would have been unfortunate -- the WEB2C confusion is a disgrace. Also, the much preferable route to get a C TeX from the Pascal/WEB one nowadays is to use Gillespie's p2c translator, which does a much better (simpler use, more readable output) job. Fortunately I think you are wrong -- I have read that the author (a meritorious person!) has actually upgraded CommonTex so that it no longer uses the same internal structure as Pascal/WEB TeX, and, to great advantage in flexibility and speed, actually allocates records as needed from the heap using malloc or something similar. I have a profound antipathy for Pascal/WEB TeX, and I liked CommonTeX 2.1, even if I ultimately stuck with troff because the input language is vastly simpler (I had thought that a more difficult input language than troff's was an impossible feat, until I read the TeXbook :-/), and is twice as slow as troff (another feat that I thought impossible, especially considering that all TeX implementations precompile their macro packages, while the ditroff I am using does not -- notice though that CommonTeX is actually faster than Pascal/WEB TeX by a good margin). Note that much of the slowness could be attributed to the lack of a floating point coprocessor in my machine, which probably impacts a TeX implementation much more than a troff one -- but then that a text processor be floating point intensive seems to be an original defect, to me. I would be very interested in any updated CommonTeX, especially if it so much faster as to be comptetitive with troff, or at least does not have hard coded limits to the size of its tables. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk