From: maynard@tamar.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley)
Subject: Re: Release dates ( was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:42:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.003150.22823@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com
(Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.040320.21532@msc.cornell.edu>
>maynard@esther.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>>
>>Can I make a comment here. I have a Mac and (as some know) am an avid
>Mac
>>evangelist. But I use Alpha (an emacs like editor) and AMS-LaTeX
>(running
>>on OzTeX) for almost all documents, even letters to friends. It is my
>>considered opinion that NOTHING right now produces output with the
>quality
>>of TeX. I'm a graduate physicist. I see papers written by people using
>Word
>>etc. They suck. The spacing in the math is wrong. The sizes of the
>various
>>symbols are correlated with each other etc. 
>
>Incredibly important to those of us who don't need to put math in
>writing.
>What about all of those people writing non-technical material.  What
>about
>people simply typing up business letters once in a while.  Word does just
>fine on that, and you don't have to learn to use a non-gui based program.
>
>>
>>I can see two groups of people thinking this is acceptable: 
>>1) People who don't understand complex math and who think that the
>simple
>>fact that all the symbols are there in approximately the correct place
>is
>>acceptable,
>
>Whether someone doesn't understand complex math or not doesn't have a lot
>to do with this, except for the fact that you get an ego boost for
>"knowing"
>you are better than them.  I'd say that MOST documents written out there
>have
>no need to display complex math notation.
>
>I'd say the key here is that there are people who understand that they
>don't
>need to know complex math to write documents.
>
>>2) People who have no aesthetic sensibilities.
>
>What a pompous statement.  I'll let others judge this for themselves
>though.
>
>
>>Knuth spent quite a few years of his life on TeX because he wasn't
>>satisfied with "good enough" and I think it shows. Consider something
>>simple: every other word processor output I've seen has italic words
>>bumping into the roman words that follow them because they don't know
>about
>>italic correction. Look at the way TeX varies the spacing between
>letters
>>and words with punctuation. Lots of little things add up to quality
>>output.
>
>
>How many NON-ACADEMIC publishing houses use TeX?  A lot use Mac and
>Windows
>and they seem to be doing just fine.
>
>>I agree that TeX is in many ways a pain. Using LaTeX is a big
>improvement.
>>Using AMS-LaTeX with the New Font Selection Scheme is another
>improvement.
>>But picture handling and lack of instant feedback are a big pain. I
>would
>>pay lots of money for a word processor that produced TeX quality output
>>with a decent Mac style interface and picture handling. Such a beast
>does
>>not exist yet. But I bought a Mac because I demand the best. And I use
>TeX
>>because I demand the best.
>
>Yeah, and I bet you bought a green marker for your compact disk
>collection
>too.  (Audiophile Joke).
>
>When you say things like "I demand the Best", I'd like you to qualify that
>with
>the phrase "for the things that I want out of xxx".
>
>Then I'll believe you.
>
>I assume you do a lot of research papers, etc.  Thats why you need the
>mathamatical notation.  Fine.  Don't go saying that I'm not using the
>best
>when I use Word to jot down poetry, or write a paper for an english
>course.
>Word or other GUI based apps are probably far better for me than
>TeX/Emacs
>for these uses.  Frankly, I think one of your requirements for a good
>system
>is one that is esoteric enough that you can spew how much you know about
>it
>on the net.  Good of an Ego boost.
>
>>But to say that Word and competitors can produce simple text, let alone
>>math that is the equal of TeX is to reveal chronic ignorance or chronic
>>lack of aesthetic sensibilities.
>
>Very Subjective, aren't you.
>How come you keep on trying to prove that others are ignorant or lack
>aesthetics.  Is this projection.  Do you feel ignorant yourself?  Are
>you making up for the fact that you feel you have no sense or aesthetics
>or creativity.
>
>You know, out here in the real world, it's okay to say I like such and
>such
>products, and don't like others without calling people names.  Most of
>left
>that behind in elementary school.  Quit telling us how much better you
>are
>'cause you use such and such, though.  Just because you use a product
>doesn't
>make you any better or worse a person, and you just proved that you are
>worse than a number of Word users I know, 'cause you resort to simple
>name
>calling to get an ego boost.
>
>>
>>Maynard Handley
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinion...

Just to point out that this discussion started by someone saying that
word-processors could give technical output every bit as good as TeX in
quality and with greater ease of use. My entire comments revolve around
this claim and state that I don't believe this to be true. I have found
that it is very easy to tell technical output that has not been produced
using TeX and that it does not look as good. 

Why exactly are you flaming me? Neither I- nor anyone else contributing to
this thread- have claimed that TeX is easy to learn or ideal for writing
memos. We have claimed only that nothing else produces technical output
that is as good, and that nothing else available right now fits into the
technical writing environment as well as TeX. I have also claimed that TeX
produces better-looking non-technical text than word-processors, and so
because I know it (and because I got it for free, not $300), I use it for
that purpose. Do you disagree with my claim that TeX produces better
looking text? It's not clear to me from your reply quite what you believe.
We have not even claimed that TeX is the ONLY possible solution- simply
that it is the best right now.

Please feel free to comment on these claims. But gratuitous flaming about
things that have nothing to do with our claims- especially speculation on
my personality deficiencies- really do little to advance the discussion.
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:4940 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2081