[comp.text.tex] Why learn Tex?

"Arnold G. Gill" <GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (03/01/90)

In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) says:
>
>What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex?  Aren't their days
>numbered?  Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.
>Why aren't Unix people?  I read in a book about Unix(that black
>paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word
>processor was that it couldn't handle large documents.  It seems to me
>that this limitation has been overcome.
     TeX does not seem to be a word-processor to me, but rather a document
preparation package.  If you insist on writing straight text, I agree that TeX
is, in general, overpowered and perfectly good results can be obtained from
any word-processor or even text editor.  However, where TeX excels is in the
addition of chemical/mathematical/special language symbols.  It figures out
sizing by itself, reformats pages/equations/paragraphs, automatically
calculates indices, footnotes, table of contents, figure numbering, etc.
The output from TeX is close to being beautiful (IMHO).  The only drawback is
a bit of a problem with the learning curve, and the fact that one cannot see
one's results instantly - but there are many dvi previewers out there.  And
with the addition of including postscript graphics files into TeX, even that
difficulty has been alleviated.

     I would say that TeX is a scientific document preparation programme.  For
what it is designed for, nothing else compares (though something like ChiWriter
is arguably close).
-------
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                        |                                     |
|  Queen's University at Kingston     |  If I hadn't wanted it to be heard  |
|  BITNET   : gilla@qucdn             |       I wouldn't have said it.      |
|  X-400    : Arnold.Gill@QueensU.CA  |                                     |
|  INTERNET : gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca  |                                     |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (03/01/90)

In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.

     Gee, I guess those of us in VMSland only *thought* we were using 
TeX...

 /----------------------------\ /----------------------------------------\
| John Price                   | Internet: jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu |
| 5-145 Knudsen Hall           | BITNET:   price@uclaph                   |
| UCLA Dept. of Physics        | DECnet:   uclapp::jprice                 |
| Los Angeles, CA  90024-1547  | YellNet:  213-825-2259                   |
 \----------------------------/ \----------------------------------------/

melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/01/90)

What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex?  Aren't their days
numbered?  Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.
Why aren't Unix people?  I read in a book about Unix(that black
paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word
processor was that it couldn't handle large documents.  It seems to me
that this limitation has been overcome.

-Mike

leathrum@chocorua.dartmouth.edu (Thomas Leathrum) (03/01/90)

In Article 180 in comp.text.tex, 
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:

What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex?  Aren't their days
numbered?  Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.
Why aren't Unix people?  I read in a book about Unix(that black
paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word
processor was that it couldn't handle large documents.  It seems to me
that this limitation has been overcome.

---End of Quoted Material

I agree with you, word processors have come a long way in the last few years, 
and have affected the way many things are written.  But TeX is *NOT* a word 
processor, even in the loosest sense of the term.  It is a typesetting facility
designed with mathematics in mind.  Word processors have  only recently begun
to be able to include reasonable looking mathematics, and even so their output
is targeted at a specific printer.  TeX automatically typesets mathematics
(the symbols are input as TeX control sequences -- TeX takes care of all the
sizing and spacing for you) and outputs a device independent file that you can
print on your little 300dpi laser printer and then send THE SAME FILE to a
publisher who prints it for a journal with a 1500dpi printer.  One day soon,
a word-processing environment may be set up which can generate this sort of 
output, but even so the output routines will be basically the same as the 
current TeX output routines -- so the word processor will actually be doing
something like taking its input and generating TeX output, the same way many
word processors today generate PostScript.  Even so, TeX is much more readable
than PostScript, and so you could customize the output much more easily.  Until
such a word processor is developed, TeX remains the best way to generate clean,
readable, publisher-ready mathematics.  I will be the first to admit that the
use of TeX has become something very esoteric, but that's because the use of
mathematics has (unfortunately) also become very esoteric.

Regards,
Tom Leathrum
moth@dartmouth.edu

kono@csl.sony.co.jp (Shinji Kono) (03/01/90)

Inside the Unix culture, every tools or editors should be connected
each other. Simple word-processor such as FullWord cannot do it, since
Unix has his own ( bad or not so bad ) way of connections.
TeX or *roff is such kind of things.

In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>  , melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)writes 
> numbered?  Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.
> Why aren't Unix people? 

Soon, we will have WysWyg type layout structure editor with in Unix. 
But if that Very Good Tool is independent from all other unix tools or
files, nobody (at least not I :-) will use it. For example, Publiss is
such kind of thing.

So I prefer xfig rather than MacDraw, even how good MacDraw is.
--------
Shinji Kono 
$B2OLn??<#(J Sony Computer Science Laboratory, Inc.: kono@csl.sony.co.jp

sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) (03/01/90)

In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>
>What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex?  Aren't their days
>numbered?  Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.
>Why aren't Unix people?  I read in a book about Unix(that black
>paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word
>processor was that it couldn't handle large documents.  It seems to me
>that this limitation has been overcome.
>
>-Mike

There have been a couple of answers to this that seem to have missed the
point, a little.

1. TeX is not a word processing tool.
2. Word processing tools (wysiwig) are not capable of handling
   large documents satisfactorily (even if you think they are).

To enlarge on 2. a little further, you may think that the results of
your favorite wysiwig wp are up to TeX standards, but in larger
documents you quickly start to lose stylistic coherence.

To keep that coherence, you need a markup language, be it troff, sgml or
TeX. 

The difference is analogous to the difference between compilers and
interpreters (don't push the analogy to far, though).  If you need a
quick ten line program, then an interpreter such as awk is ideal, and it
comes with all sorts of powerful facilities.  If what you have in mind
is for general consumption, and you expect it to come in at ~100,000
lines, then you would use a compiler, even though a compiler is not
nearly as user friendly as a well designed interpreter. 

Using TeX to write a one page letter is overkill of resources and
effort---Use word or even Macwrite.

Use Macwrite to produce camera ready copy for a book and the result will
be a mess.

Use Word to produce crc for a book and the result will be satisfactory
but amateur.

Use TeX (intelligently) and the result will be professional (I know from
experience).  Use TeX badly and the results will be horrible (like
Fortran written in ML---is that even possible?). 

The point is that markup languages will always be better for big jobs,
even though (because?) they demand a lot more discipline.

Sean

walter@hpsad.HP.COM (Walter Coole) (03/02/90)

There will always be a need for an easy-to-learn way to create
documents.  Word processors are fairly good at that aspect, but
generally are limited in their capability (consider the popularity of
desk top publishing programs, which provide some extended capability).
No one has yet come up with an adequate way to create documents that
combines a WYSIWYG interface with the kind of expressibility that TeX
has.  As word processors get more sophisticated, they tend to more resemble
programming languages.  TeX (and troff) is one persons choice
of how best to make that trade-off; WordPerfect is another.  They fill
different needs for different users.  Both views are subject to
ongoing improvements.  I think that there will be some convergence,
eg. Vortex, but I'm not going to hold my breath.  TeX is well suited
to publishing books on mathematics, but many people find it convenient
for all sorts of documents.  WordPerfect is well suited to writing
business letters, but many people find it convenient for all sorts of
documents.  Why is there any need for pistachio ice cream, when vanilla is
far more popular, and meets most people's needs?

jeh@simpact.com (03/02/90)

In article <E5f$a51@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
 writes:
> What advantages are there in learning troff or Tex?  Aren't their days
> numbered?  Everyone in the non-Unix world is using word processors.
> Why aren't Unix people?  I read in a book about Unix(that black
> paperback book from Byte) that the major disadvantage in using a word
> processor was that it couldn't handle large documents.  It seems to me
> that this limitation has been overcome.

I `sold' my company on using LaTeX for documentation.  We've been happy with
it for about two years now.  We keep looking at Word Perfect, et al, and
rejecting it/them.  Reasons:

1.  "Large documents" means not just many pages but also complex structure. 
Chapters, sections, subsections, figures, tables, listings, examples, 
TOC, TOF, TOT, TO*, indexes, bibliographies, footnotes, and cross references
between all of the preceding... Word Perfect (WP) can do *some* of what LaTeX 
can do with this stuff.  Not nearly all.  

2.  TeX input files are plain old Ascii text files.  As such they can be
prepared on any machine in the company, even if that machine does not run
TeX.  Under VMS, the Language Sensitive Editor is a great way to use LaTeX;
the templates `know' most of the commonly-used structures.  For another
example, until very recently we were still doing contract work
on HP 1000 series equipment.  The programmers did the first and second 
cuts at their documents on the machine they were familiar with, using the
text editor they were familiar with.  (I wouldn't wish that editor on anybody,
but one can get used to almost anything and once you're used to one, switching
frequently between it and another editor is a  real productivity-killer.)
Eventually, of course, the stuff got shipped over to the Tech Pubs group, 
who use TexTures on Macs.  Which brings me to...

3.  TeX is non-proprietary and runs *compatibly* under more operating systems 
than any proprietary word processor I know of.  Yes, I know, WP runs under
MS-DOS, VMS, Macintosh, and (I believe) various flavors of Unix... but did
you know it isn't quite compatible?  That the MS-DOS version has features
that others don't?  (At least so I am told by the Tech Pubs people, who have
been researching alternatives.)  So, even if you can get your WP files from
one machine to another without munging the format, you can't guarantee that
you'll get the same output everywhere.  This is not a problem with TeX.   

4.  The "plain Ascii" nature of TeX input has other advantages.  For example,
it can be generated by other programs.  In one document we needed to describe
the Ascii/EBCDIC translation provided by one of our packages.  Since the 
translation table was already in the code, nobody wanted to transcribe it
into the document format (and track revisions, etc.).  It took about half 
an hour to write a little program to take the table in "C" code and emit
a file that could be \input within a LaTeX \tabular environment, so that
the document will ALWAYS reflect what the code says.  You can play similar
games with VMS HELP and LaTeX documents, too.  

5.  Since TeX is just a program like any other it "plays well" with other
programs... like configuration management (CMS under VMS, rcs/sccs/etc. under
Unix) and build utilities (MMS, make).  In the above example, for instance, a
makefile guarantees that when the code changes the doc gets updated to match.

I could go on.  However, this subject, like text editors, is like a religion.
If you aren't convinced now you probably won't ever be.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG 
-------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Internet:  jeh@simpact.com,	     | Future shock:  A sense of bewilderment
 or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com | felt by those who were not paying
Uucp:  ...{crash,decwrl}!simpact!jeh | attention. -- Analog (Jan 90)

rusty@garnet.berkeley.edu (rusty wright) (03/02/90)

Some people argue that with mark up systems (tex, troff, etc.) you can
do things like automatic numbering of sections, figures, etc. or do
global reformatting via macros (for example, change all section heads
to use a different font).  This may still be mostly true but I suspect
as time goes by the wysiwyg systems will start allowing you to do this
as well.  In fact, I would guess that in time they will allow you to
do everything that you can do in tex.  Therefore, to me the more
important issues are

(1) With a wysiwyg system you are constantly made aware of the
formatting; some would say that you are being distracted by the
formatting.  During the writing you should only be worrying about the
content and leave worrying about the appearance until just before the
final draft.

(2) Wysiwyg systems tend to be system-specific.  You probably can
transport a Microsoft Word document between a PC and a Mac if both run
Word but you probably won't be able to transport it to a Unix machine.
But maybe Microsoft will come out with Word for Unix and then you can
pay Big Bux for it for that machine as well.

For a lot of people item 2 probably doesn't matter.  That's fine with
me, but they should be aware of it.  For a lot of other people item 1
is a very emotional issue.  Many people who have used a wysiwyg system
just can't understand how anybody would want to use a mark up system.
They think that you are giving up so much with a mark up system.  I
find it hard to discuss with them.  So I try not to get into arguments
with them over it; if they're happy with what they're using then
that's great.  I'm just glad that they're not using a typewriter.
--

--------------------------------------
	rusty c. wright
	rusty@violet.berkeley.edu ucbvax!violet!rusty

jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (03/02/90)

In article <2547@castle.ed.ac.uk> sean@castle.ed.ac.uk (S Matthews) writes:
>
>Using TeX to write a one page letter is overkill of resources and
>effort---Use word or even Macwrite.

  Well, to each his own. I strongly disagree though. Using the Latex
letter style you can make a letter template with which it is trivial
to make very professional business letters. Granted I probably wouldn't
install TeX if that's all I was ever going to do with it, but once
you have it, you might as well.

> Sean

   Jim (jac@gandalf.llnl.gov)

wsinkees@lso.win.tue.nl (Kees Huizing) (03/02/90)

walter@hpsad.HP.COM (Walter Coole) writes:

>There will always be a need for an easy-to-learn way to create
>documents.  Word processors are fairly good at that aspect, but
>generally are limited in their capability (consider the popularity of
>desk top publishing programs, which provide some extended capability).
>No one has yet come up with an adequate way to create documents that
>combines a WYSIWYG interface with the kind of expressibility that TeX
>has.

Note that there are WYSIWYG formula editors (Expressionist, MathType, both
for the Macintosh) that can translate the visually built formula to TeX.

>As word processors get more sophisticated, they tend to more resemble
>programming languages.  TeX (and troff) is one persons choice
>of how best to make that trade-off; WordPerfect is another.  They fill
>different needs for different users.  Both views are subject to
>ongoing improvements.  I think that there will be some convergence,
>eg. Vortex, but I'm not going to hold my breath. 

I am.  When I make the choice to use TeX, it's only because there is no
better alternative.  With better I mean: with better output and more
standard.  The ASCII source text and the wide acception in academic
environments makes it *the* vehicle to exchange documents by e-mail -- if
there are formulas in --, to write a paper with remote co-authors and to
edit a paper out of electronic submissions.  But I hate the edit-compile-print
cycle  (we can not preview - yet).  When I see the people around me struggling
to get acquainted to (La)TeX and I see myself still struggling to achieve
something in my text I have not done before, I think there is a *huge*
interest in tools that combine the WYSIMoreOrLessWYG interface with the
advantages of TeX.  But even a program that translates MS-Word documents or
something alike to TeX or, preferably, to LaTeX would be very welcome.
-- Someone listening out there?

>TeX is well suited
>to publishing books on mathematics, but many people find it convenient
>for all sorts of documents.  WordPerfect is well suited to writing
>business letters, but many people find it convenient for all sorts of
>documents.  Why is there any need for pistachio ice cream, when vanilla is
>far more popular, and meets most people's needs?

But there do exist people who want pistachio ice cream without being forced
to eat it with chopsticks.
						Kees
-- 
Kees Huizing - Eindhoven Univ of Techn - Dept Math & Comp Sc - The Netherlands
DOMAIN: wsinkees@win.tue.nl    BITNET: wsdckeesh@heitue5    FAX: +31-40-436685 

lamarche@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Louis Lamarche) (03/02/90)

I am a Word(4.0) user on the Macintosh. Typically, I produce scientific reports
having ~100 pages. Scientific equations are handle with a program called 
Expressionist (very WYSIWYG oriented) from which I cut and paste. On the
other side, I work with peoples pleased with Tex and Latex.

I am not convinced to switch to Tex or LaTex, for the following reason:

o  In my opinion figures help to understand a subject.
o  Tex and LaTex do not handle figures easily, so peoples dont put figures
   in their documents. (This is what I see)
o  Sometimes a figure may equal a thousand of words :-)

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Louis Lamarche, IREQ |       lamarche@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
| CP 1000, Varennes    |                 or
| QC, Canada, J3X 1S1  |  514-652-8077 (office)  514-324-2919 (home)

delliott@cec1.wustl.edu (Dave Elliott) (03/03/90)

In article <957@tuewsd.lso.win.tue.nl> wsinkees@lso.win.tue.nl (Kees Huizing) writes:

>something in my text I have not done before, I think there is a *huge*
>interest in tools that combine the WYSIMoreOrLessWYG interface with the
>advantages of TeX.  But even a program that translates MS-Word documents or
>something alike to TeX or, preferably, to LaTeX would be very welcome.
>-- Someone listening out there?
>
Kai Horstmann is working on a ChiWriter-to-TeX translator.

ghe@mist.cs.orst.edu (Guangliang He) (03/03/90)

In article <597@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> lamarche@s1.UUCP (Louis Lamarche) writes:
|I am a Word(4.0) user on the Macintosh. Typically, I produce scientific reports
|having ~100 pages. Scientific equations are handle with a program called 
|Expressionist (very WYSIWYG oriented) from which I cut and paste. On the
|other side, I work with peoples pleased with Tex and Latex.
|
|I am not convinced to switch to Tex or LaTex, for the following reason:
|
|o  In my opinion figures help to understand a subject.
|o  Tex and LaTex do not handle figures easily, so peoples dont put figures
|   in their documents. (This is what I see)
|o  Sometimes a figure may equal a thousand of words :-)
|

Yes, figures are important. And TeXtures (Mac Version of TeX)  does handle
figures well. Probably easier than Word. 

ghe@mist.cs.orst.edu

koontz@cam.nist.gov (John E. Koontz X5180) (03/03/90)

Mark Up Systems vs. WYSI(A)WYG

Arguing about the relative merits of markup vs. WYSI(A)WYG is like
arguing about the relative merits of microprocessors vs. graphical
interfaces.  Markup implements text structure in some way; WYSI(A)WYG
is a way of handling the process of entering text and mark up.  All
text processing systems use markup in one form or another; even the
lowliest text editor inserts line terminators (with Function Key
Enter!).  

There is no reason why a sophisticated markup system like LaTeX/TeX 
can't be fronted by a WYSI(A)WYG editor, and there is no reason why a
WYSI(A)WYG word processor can't be underlain by a markup system as
sophisticated as LaTeX/TeX.  It would take a powerful system with a
good GUI to pull off true WYSIWYG, though, and that's why the current
best approaches to such a thing, e.g., Framemaker or Arbor Text's
Publisher, run on Unix work stations.  

Naturally, on the character-based screen of a DOS system sans GUI there
is no way that you're going to get "true" WYSIWYG.  You're really
working with a continuously refreshed dvi2ASCII window - call it "what
you see is an iconic representation of what you'll get." In spite of
its limitations, this is vastly superior to wrestling with a mixture of
markup and unformatted text.  I cannot conceive how seeing one's text
maintained in some nice approximation of the final result could	be
distracting.  Is it distracting to see one's code indented suitably
while composing it?  Is it less distracting to be continually
reorganizing the text "by hand" into some readable form as you enter
it?

It seems, therefore, that so-called WYSIWYG is really just a friendly
editing environment.  Although current ideas of such an environment
seem to be based on obtaining near perfect representation of the final
result, while retaining access to the logical structure, it isn't clear
that representational exactitude is essential.  At any rate it is almost
never achieved, and most people are still satisfied with the results.  

The real opposition between LaTeX/TeX and most "word processors" is
that the former have paid special attention to detailed control of
formatting (TeX) or to abstracting the formatting process in favor of
the structuring process (LaTeX and SGML), i.e., to perfection of markup
systems, while the latter have devoted their attention to perfecting
the user interface.  The ideal tool would have the advantages of both
approaches!  

Current "WYSIWYG" word processors are indeed system specific.  This is
partly system specificity in the sense that a dvi2X filter is X
specific, or that the keyboard of your terminal is system specific. 
Since the editing view is provided by something like that filter, it is
naturally device dependent.  Actually, most DOS word processors are
amazingly flexible in terms of what hardware they will work with,
because DOS is amazingly flexible as to what I/O devices it will
support.  This kind of system specificity is inherent in the I/O
process.  

There is, however, a real problem in word processors with
system-specificity in terms of proprietary markup systems.  Each word
processor uses its own, or, at least, there are not many cases of
shared systems.  And, of course, these proprietary systems are not as
powerful as the system embedded in, e.g., LaTeX/TeX, though some of the
best of them are much better than LaTeX/TeX users seem to realize;
automatic numbering of logical units is here today, for example, not
something vaguely hoped for.  It would be nice if there were only one
or two universal, non-proprietary markup systems in use, so that the
difference between word processors was merely a matter of the details
of the interface between the author and the markup system, or what
details of the markup system were supported in the editor, etc.  Maybe
someday.  

By the way, several DOS word processors/publishers have Unix versions
(or vice versa)!  

This is all personal opinion, and does not reflect in any way the opinions
or policies of my employer.

ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (03/03/90)

Markup vs WYSIWYG seems to be one of those personal choices, like
command line interfaces vs iconic interfaces. I suspect it correlates
with personalities that like abstraction vs personalities that like
demonstration.  Find the system you are comfortable with and use that.

To some extent it also depends on what you want to do. If you design
lots of one page flyers as opposed to writing a lot of boilerplate
layout papers, your choice might be different.

Let me throw in a few definitely biased opinions.

Equation editors are claimed to be easier to use than typing in sub and
superscripts. Maybe the learning curve is faster. Maybe it's easier
for complex arrays. I find wandering through a maze of walking
menus or trying to remember the accelerator key bindings no easier than
just typing the ^s and _s myself.

Abstraction is useful. I changed the appearance of a logo a couple of
times.  Because I consistently used a macro, all I had to do was
redefine the macro.  But this takes foresight.

Seeing what you are going to get is a warm feeling, but I have often
generated output I never saw in its final form until I printed it, no
not even previewed and it came out just fine. As for letters, I just
take an old letter, rip out the guts, change the addresses and
salutations and bingo, another letter.

I dislike being dependent on having a graphics screen to use WYSISYG
editors. I often type in text on a modem line. I keep my lines
justified but a lot of people don't bother and it doesn't matter to
TeX. Just a fetish of mine.

On the other hand I use WYSIWYG picture editors. I would also love to
have a visual layout editor that turns out TeX declarations.

Reports of the impending death of markup due to WYSIWYG are greatly
exaggerated. For portable documents, automatically generated text, e.g.
from databases, markup is hard to beat. There is money to be made
producing tools to get the job done using the best combination of
tools. Like that layout editor, hint, hint. :-)

frost@sdsu.edu (Richard Frost) (03/03/90)

In article <1990Mar3.012140.4928@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>Markup vs WYSIWYG seems to be one of those personal choices, like
>command line interfaces vs iconic interfaces. I suspect it correlates
>with personalities that like abstraction vs personalities that like
>demonstration.  Find the system you are comfortable with and use that.

Actually I have very little choice in the matter.  The only affordable
computing alternative for me is a graphics terminal, with modem and
printer.  For computing engines I use a Celerity and Cray YMP.  The
Cray runs a version of system V and the Celerity BSD 4.3 (both Unix).

I could have a very stressful life and drive to University to use a
Mac for every word processing task, or just do it at home at a more
leasurely pace with all the creature comforts.

Now like some of you, I was initiated to computing in the early 70's, when
the only word-processor available was a markup system--namely runnoff.
So Tex doesn't appear bad to me and likewise WYSIWYG is a fantastic
improvement.

But I have seen only two products for the Word 1 for WP that will
approximate the features of BibTex.  This is vital to me and as yet,
nothing I've seen is good enough to justify a new Workstation at home.

P.S. No!  I don't use the Cray for wordprocessing !! :-)
-- 

* **   * * *** * * * **  * is **** * it ** *  * random ** ? *  *********
Richard Frost	Mathematical Sciences, SDSU CA 92182
Internet:  frost@sdsu.edu