Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!philip
From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re:  TeX Printer(LONG)
Message-ID: <1991Feb3.071032.13960@utstat.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Statistics
References: <11641@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <1991Feb2.151519.28432@utstat.uucp> <11644@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 1991 07:10:32 GMT

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


