From: bkph@kauai.ai.mit.edu (Berthold K.P. Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: ARGHH!-WFW2.0 Sucks big time!
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:01:50 GMT
In-reply-to: tomh@wes.on.ca's message of 8 Oct 92 23:28:45 GMT


In article <1992Oct08.232845.4458@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:

   > The output of TeX is clearly superior,
   > especially in equations. The lack of a "bibtex" full equivalent is a
   > serious lack (which, admittedly, can probably be fixed without Microsoft's
   > help. But W4W is seriously buggy and in some ways seriously klunky. 

   TeX is admittedly superior for equations.  Output quality?  Yes, maybe,
   but it's a lot more work using a variety of fonts, combining graphics
   or previewing output.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, one of the problems with TeX has always been those pesky PK bitmap
fonts (a complex directory structure with 6.5 Megabytes of `em).
Fortunately today all of the fonts commonly used with TeX are available in
ATM compatible Type 1 format, which means, for example that you can use the
same fonts in a drawing program when creating your figures.  So for the
first time the nomenclature in your figures can match the text.

Another problem has been the lack of a decent Windows based previewer.
Now that the font problem has been solved, this has also: DVIWindo.
Aside from being a previewer, it also lets you print to anything with a
Windows printer driver.  And it lets you do the sorts of things TeXies
typically are not familiar with, but Windows users are, such as copying a
region of the screen to the clipboard and pasting it into another
application. 

So, you can have the best of both worlds, get superb typsetting using TeX on
things like equations, then paste these into your WYSIWYG application, which
you may feel is more convenient to use for doing the rest!

Finally, TeX has been bound in the past to the Computer Modern fonts, which
some publishers have gotten a bit tired of.  It was always easy use to use
other fonts for text, but there weren't any math fonts to go with them.  Now
there are: Lucida Bright + Lucida New Math, in ATM compatible Type 1 format,
complete with math fonts and TeX macros to making switching from Computer
Modrn trivial.  Great combination

   > One of the biggest ... in fact, I would say THE biggest ... flaws in
   > W4W is that you can't read the intermediate files (modulo things like
   > indluded bitmaps) and can't (the topic of the original post) #include
   > other files. It is **very** possible to introduce bugs into a W4W
   > file that simply **can't** be fixed, because you can't read the file
   > and see what they are. People knock TeX because it is a "programming
   > language". True, but W4W is too, in a sense, **and it prohibits you from
   > reading the code to find bugs**!!!!

   How about turning on field codes, and paragraph markers?  What else do you
   need to see?  I can certainly debug my documents (up to 3 MB at times)  well
   enough.

   Seriously, TeX has its good points, and so does Word.  Both are excellent
   tools, but you have to pick the right tool for your work.  If you prefer
   batch formatting, don't need on-screen fonts, do lots of equations and
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   don't mind having to "program" the document, TeX may be a better choice
   for you.  

See above.  Also, if you don't like `programming' your document, there is
Scientific Word from TCI.  It generates LaTeX output and has a WYSIWYG
interface for people unhappy about reading or generating TeX code...

   However, for millions of users out there, Word for Windows (or Ami
   Pro or WordPerfect for Windows or ... ) is a better choice.

No doubt about that.

   Me, I have gone from Script/DCF to GML to troff to Word for DOS to Word for
   Windows, and I won't go back.  But I don't do many equations.  :)

   [ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]


DISCLAIMER: I have connections with Y&Y

Berthold K.P. Horn
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA