STEIN@UCONNVM.BITNET (Alan Stein) (01/30/91)
I just tried running your TeX printer on my Apple IIGS again and, wonder of wonders, it worked perfectly. Since I'd had all kinds of problems before, it made me wonder what had changed. I think the real difference is that I upgraded to 4 megs ram. I think I was running out of memory before, and got some messages that indicated errors but I never realized memory was the problem. The only other changes in my system that I can think of are that I'm now running under System 5.0.4 and I'm using a ZipGSX chip (which really speeds things up), but I think those changes would be more likely to cause problems than solve them. Now that my system can handle it, I expect to get tremendous use out of TeX dvi to imagewriter printer utility (even though I will generally be sending my final output to a Laserwriter from a Mac). Thanks for creating this tremendously valuable piece of software. __________________________________________________________ | | | Alan H. Stein | stein@uconnvm.bitnet | | Department of Mathematics | | | University of Connecticut | Compu$erve 71545,1500 | | 32 Hillside Avenue | GEnie ah.stein | | Waterbury, CT 06710 | SNET (203) 757-1231 | |__________________________________________________________|
glenn@SLOTH.NCSL.NIST.GOV (K. Robert Glenn) (01/30/91)
First, What TeX Printer Filter are you talking about? Where did you get it and is it specifically Tex or LaTeX???? Second, Does this imply that someone, somewhere outthere is actually working on TeX for the Apple II? I'd love it if someone could send me more info on TeX for the Apple II. (For those who don't know what TeX is, it is a wonderful FREE text formatting package written by Donald Knuth, that can produce very high-quality typesetting. LaTeX is a more user friendly version made from the fundamentals of TeX). Rob G. glenn@osi.ncsl.nist.gov
TMPLee@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (01/30/91)
Here's another request for more information about the alleged "TeX Printer." It sounds like it takes a .dvi file and prints it on Apple printers. What printers does it support? What does it really do? Where is it? TMPLee@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (01/31/91)
> (For those who don't know what TeX is, it is a wonderful FREE text > formatting package written by Donald Knuth, that can produce very > high-quality typesetting. TeX is *FREE*?!?!? Wow, I thought something like that would cost up near $1000 for a UNIX machine... I just saw a brief TeX session on a Sun connected to a LaserWriter IINTX at McGill University. TeX printed out a monthly appointment calendar, personalized however you see fit. Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler)
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (01/31/91)
In article <428@generic.UUCP> taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: >> (For those who don't know what TeX is, it is a wonderful FREE text >> formatting package written by Donald Knuth, that can produce very >> high-quality typesetting. > > TeX is *FREE*?!?!? Not only is it free, but you can get source code to it over the net. It's on midway.uchicago.edu written in Modula for the Mac (TeX 3.0 even!). I haven't given it a real look, but someone down the hall compiled it up just fine. -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu dcw@mit.edu | reports. I have a job. Don't send me offers. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" --Binky (aka Matt Groening)
acmfiu@serss0.fiu.edu (ACMFIU) (02/01/91)
In article <428@generic.UUCP> taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: >> (For those who don't know what TeX is, it is a wonderful FREE text >> formatting package written by Donald Knuth, that can produce very >> high-quality typesetting. > > TeX is *FREE*?!?!? Wow, I thought something like that would cost up near >$1000 for a UNIX machine... I just saw a brief TeX session on a Sun connected >to a LaserWriter IINTX at McGill University. TeX printed out a monthly >appointment calendar, personalized however you see fit. TeX is most definitely free. Don Knuth did a very good service to the computer community by releasing this for free, including publishing the full source to it and MetaFont (the font generating program for TeX fonts). When it finally comes to the GS I think we will all be pleasantly surprised and thankful. I know i will. albert
phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) (02/01/91)
In article <428@generic.UUCP>, taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: >> (For those who don't know what TeX is, it is a wonderful FREE text >> formatting package written by Donald Knuth, that can produce very >> high-quality typesetting. > > TeX is *FREE*?!?!? Wow, I thought something like that would cost up near > $1000 for a UNIX machine... I just saw a brief TeX session on a Sun connected > to a LaserWriter IINTX at McGill University. TeX printed out a monthly > appointment calendar, personalized however you see fit. > It depends on the implementation, most are free but there are also commercial versions. Often the commercial versions are not as good!! We run TeX under VMS on our vaxes here, and also have free versions for the Mac and MS-DOS machines that I know of. Free versions exist for many other machines, but not for the GS as yet. Albert Chin is working on porting TeX to the GS, but has had to go through C source and ORCA/C as ORCA/Pascal cannot deal with arrays greater than 256K. Many people seem to be looking forward to a TeX implementation, it is the only way to do most Maths and Physical science documents. -- Stephen Harker phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Monash University
USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (02/02/91)
>TeX is *FREE*?!?!?
TeX is a document processing language written by Donald Knuth and is in the
public domain. Also in the public domain is Knuth's source code for a
generic TeX to DVI processor and other supporting software.
However, any implementation of TeX or LaTeX for a particular machine may be
PD, shareware, or commercial software. (eg. PCTeX and TeXtures are commercial,
but OZTeX is PD).
A similar situation exists for programming languages like Pascal. The language
itself is PD, but specific implementation like Turbo Pascal certainly are not.
Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca
UBC Computing Servicesrhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/02/91)
>>>>>
Albert Chin is working on porting TeX to the GS, but has had to go
through C source and ORCA/C as ORCA/Pascal cannot deal with arrays greater than
256K. Many people seem to be looking forward to a TeX implementation, it is
the only way to do most Maths and Physical science documents.
<<<<<
Actually, there are some quite good technical word processors on the PC and the
MacIntosh. Of course, people around here don't want to here stuff like that.
I personally prefer Quark XPress combined with Expressionist, Lotus Manuscript,
and FrameMaker 2.1 over TeX and LaTeX any day.
Of course, that's my opion. Since I doubt we'll see such programs on the GS,
TeX would be a reasonable substitute if it runs fast enough.
*** Randy Hydephilip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (02/02/91)
In article <11641@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >>>>>> > Albert Chin is working on porting TeX to the GS, but has had to go >through C source and ORCA/C as ORCA/Pascal cannot deal with arrays greater than >256K. Many people seem to be looking forward to a TeX implementation, it is >the only way to do most Maths and Physical science documents. ><<<<< > >Actually, there are some quite good technical word processors on the PC and the >MacIntosh. Of course, people around here don't want to here stuff like that. >I personally prefer Quark XPress combined with Expressionist, Lotus Manuscript, >and FrameMaker 2.1 over TeX and LaTeX any day. >Of course, that's my opion. Since I doubt we'll see such programs on the GS, >TeX would be a reasonable substitute if it runs fast enough. >*** Randy Hyde I have wondered when one more critic of the GS would surface when the issue of a really useful program for the GS( TeX) came up. We aren't on the multitasking issue but we are talking about something I have been involved with for years. First of all, I'm going to be blunt. You don't know what you are talking about. An equation editor ( such as Expressionist, MacEq'n, etc...) + a word processor is no way to prepare mathematical documents of any length. There are all kinds of problems to do with referencing, proofing, equation numbering,etc...INLINE equations. As far as Manuscript goes, Lotus has ceased working on it. Moreover, while it has a nice preview mode, it is not a scientific word processor. It is more along the lines of WordPerfect5.1. I have FrameMaker on my NeXT. This is a powerful DTP package, but nobody even in the NeXT world( where I live a lot) considers it to be appropriate for preparing a mathematical article for a journal. It is overkill in one sense and too weak in another. It is in the tradition of cut/paste methods as found with the equation editor approach. A simple thing like alpha sup 2 sub k is hard to do, even alpha in a line, since you have to use a mouse to get into the symbol font or go into FrameMath. The NeXT comes with a very nice TeX ( the same as AmigaTeX which is excellent). Most people prefer to use it. You are better off spending a couple of weeks learning it than years fiddling around with the mouse. FrameMaker on the Mac is no better. It is essentially the same as the version on the NeXT, except that it is not usable without a full page monitor. Both FrameMaker on the Mac and the NeXT "only" cost $1000US, and the upgrade fees are very high. There is a very nice program on the Mac, called MathWriter 2.0 which will ship in a month. I have been involved with it in its testing stage. It is WYSIWYG and will finally get rid of the editors. The price is $395. They have a student version. It is the only serious alternative to TeXTures on the Mac. The PC has a WYSIWYG mathematical word processor called EXP, and it has a very good TeX translator. There are many others, but I suspect that this is the best of the lot. The AMS Bulletin has occasional reviews. The bottem line is that there really is no program that can compete with TeX/troff for preparing technical theses, mathematical articles, etc...and the approach you mention( editors with a DTP package) can't be taken seriously. Putting TeX onto the GS is feasible and is a worthwhile venture. TeX is free( EXP and MathWriter are in the $400 range). An equation editor for the GS would be useful for undergraduate assignments. Sorry to come across in such a harsh tone, but people who keep bringing up the Mac and the PC as alternatives to workstations are just fooling themselves. At the moment, they are simply not there software wise, OS wise,etc...They are no more useful than a GS, Amiga, ST, etc... The PC and the Mac are business oriented computers. They gave up on higher education some time ago. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto Professor of Statistics philip@utstat.toronto.edu
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/03/91)
>>>> First of all, I'm going to be blunt. You don't know what you are talking about. An equation editor ( such as Expressionist, MacEq'n, etc...) + a word processor is no way to prepare mathematical documents of any length. There are all kinds of problems to do with referencing, proofing, equation numbering,etc...INLINE equations. <<<< Gee, I've written MANY technical articles on my Mac and PC using these products. I found them MUCH easier to use than TeX. Clearly someone who is very familiar with TeX and not so familiar with other products (or vice versa, for that matter) may scoff at the use of one or the other as a "true" technical word processor. My experience with people's attitudes on the subject is "whatever you learn first, you stick with." >>> Putting TeX onto the GS is feasible and is a worthwhile venture. TeX is free( EXP and MathWriter are in the $400 range). <<< You didn't find me in disagreement with this assessment. I hope the result is fast enough to be practical (this is more a problem with GS software development tools rather than TeX). >>>> Sorry to come across in such a harsh tone, but people who keep bringing up the Mac and the PC as alternatives to workstations are just fooling themselves. At the moment, they are simply not there software wise, OS wise,etc...They are no more useful than a GS, Amiga, ST, etc... The PC and the Mac are business oriented computers. They gave up on higher education some time ago. <<< >> Sorry to come across Why should you be any different than anyone else around here?!? As to the comment concerning Macs vs. Workstations, I use a Sun Sparcstation, a 486, a 386, a Mac IIfx, and a GS (among other, lesser machines). I use the Mac the most, the 80x86 machines next, the Sparc third, and the GS fourth. I'm not a total UNIX weenie (I don't run X with 10 tasks going at once, for example), I use UNIX to get simple tasks accomplished. Perhaps I'm lazy, but I much prefer the Mac and the PCs because they're some much easier to use. As for TeX, I piss off a lot of my students each quarter because I make them learn it in order to submit their lab reports and homework assignments. If we had FrameMaker on the Suns I'd probably switch to that. I've got nothing against TeX personally, it's just that FrameMaker would be easier to teach and use than TeX by freshmen and sophomores. *** Randy Hyde
neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) (02/03/91)
[ Philip's salient comments deleted ]
I'd just like to inject something into this discussion on the issue
of TeX vs. everything else.
In the past year some physics journals, notably Phys.Rev., started
accepting journals through e-mail, instead of requiring a hardcopy
manuscript. As far as I know they accept only TeX format, with
PostScript for the diagrams and graphs, though that might have changed
since they began the policy. TeX is _the standard_ for technical
writing. What good is an IBM technical word processor if I can't kermit
the output files over to a Sun or Vax and work on it there? It's makes
the difference between doing stuff for yourself and the friends who
have the same program, and making a document which anybody can read.
--
Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | "Shtarker! Zis is KAOS!
neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | Vee do not 'yippee yo
cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | kye aye' here!"
"Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | Siegfried of KAOSphilip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (02/03/91)
In article <11644@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >>>>> >First of all, I'm going to be blunt. You don't know what you are talking >about. An equation editor ( such as Expressionist, MacEq'n, etc...) + a >word processor is no way to prepare mathematical documents of any length. >There are all kinds of problems to do with referencing, proofing, >equation numbering,etc...INLINE equations. ><<<< > >Gee, I've written MANY technical articles on my Mac and PC using these >products. I found them MUCH easier to use than TeX. Clearly someone >who is very familiar with TeX and not so familiar with other products >(or vice versa, for that matter) may scoff at the use of one or the >other as a "true" technical word processor. My experience with people's >attitudes on the subject is "whatever you learn first, you stick with." Well I can certainly agree that if something works for you then why bother to fix it. I still find it hard to believe that you can "easily" send in say a 20 page manuscript full of equations,etc...using Expressionist. I have used it, and I do like it, but while it is obviously easier than TeX it is a real pain when composing the stuff I do. Your mileage may vary. Nevertheless, you should have a good look at MathWriter 2.0. This is not an equation editor, and it can be used for book length stuff( and it runs on the Mac). I do think you are overestimating the difficuly of using TeX. Given the appropriate macros,etc... it is not that hard, and it is first rate. I don't usually scoff at WYSIWYG mathematical word processors, as I have been looking for a good one for years. MathWriter is good, but you need a top of the line Mac for the professional version. EXP may be an answer, as it is WYSIWYG and has a very good TeX translator. So think of EXP as proofing a TeX document. Very little cleaning up is needed. But you still have to know TeX to go this route. >>>> >Putting TeX onto the GS is feasible and is a worthwhile venture. TeX >is free( EXP and MathWriter are in the $400 range). ><<< >You didn't find me in disagreement with this assessment. I hope the result >is fast enough to be practical (this is more a problem with GS software >development tools rather than TeX). I assume the issue of speed you are referring to is previewing. This would appear to be a major challenge. Entering TeX and then having it typeset (i.e. producing the dvi file) can't be that bad. In any case a GS without a TWGS/Zip is not very usable. >>>>> >Sorry to come across in such a harsh tone, but people who keep bringing >up the Mac and the PC as alternatives to workstations are just >fooling themselves. At the moment, they are simply not there software >wise, OS wise,etc...They are no more useful than a GS, Amiga, ST, etc... >The PC and the Mac are business oriented computers. They gave up on >higher education some time ago. ><<< >>> Sorry to come across >Why should you be any different than anyone else around here?!? Well I did feel bad about the tone of my note. I really didn't mean for it to come out that way. Sorry about that. I did go back and have a closer look at FrameMaker on my NeXT, and it just isn't clear. One would have to spend a while creating various macros. In principal, one should be able to do pretty well anything with it. >As to the comment concerning Macs vs. Workstations, I use a Sun Sparcstation, >a 486, a 386, a Mac IIfx, and a GS (among other, lesser machines). I use >the Mac the most, the 80x86 machines next, the Sparc third, and the GS fourth. >I'm not a total UNIX weenie (I don't run X with 10 tasks going at once, for >example), I use UNIX to get simple tasks accomplished. Perhaps I'm lazy, but >I much prefer the Mac and the PCs because they're some much easier to use. Well I do agree with your statement about X. It's not a very responsive windowing system and it is very resource hungry. As for the Mac, when the II came out I thought we had finally arrived at a useful computer. But then all the people who were going to move their scientific software to it didn't. For example the main data analysis/ graphics/statistical package we use is called New S from Bell Labs. I have it up and running on the NeXT( free). On the Mac, all one can get is canned packages such as Systat which may be fine for consulting standard problems, but are hardly research tools. I find it unbelievable that you spend most of your time on the Mac, unless you are typing, drawing, etc...There are some data acquisition programs and finite element ones, but what could you be using it for? The Mac's and PC's are easier to use because they simply do less. In any case you can get that ease of use from a NeXT. I am not a Unix wizard, and I don't really care what the OS is, as long as I enjoy the computer and it does what it is supposed to. >As for TeX, I piss off a lot of my students each quarter because I make them >learn it in order to submit their lab reports and homework assignments. If >we had FrameMaker on the Suns I'd probably switch to that. I've got nothing >against TeX personally, it's just that FrameMaker would be easier to teach >and use than TeX by freshmen and sophomores. >*** Randy Hyde Well that is certainly true. I wouldn't want to have to teach TeX to people under these time constraints to new students. I can't blame you for wanting out. FrameMaker is easier at first. I just wonder about how far you can take it. I also worry about $500 upgrades! Philip McDunnough
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/03/91)
In article <1991Feb2.234136.23733@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: > In the past year some physics journals, notably Phys.Rev., started >accepting journals through e-mail, instead of requiring a hardcopy >manuscript. As far as I know they accept only TeX format, with >PostScript for the diagrams and graphs, though that might have changed >since they began the policy. TeX is _the standard_ for technical writing. Actually, several journals have accepted troff input, and I assume they still do so. troff and TeX have similar characteristics and stand as a class opposed to WYSIWYG systems.