From: sens@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: TeX Advantage
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:35:18 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Aug30.153741.3155@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:

>  
>  This is absolutely incorrect.  I see TeX files being passed around all the
>  time that the recipient cannot print or preview because the author forgot
>  to send their macro file.  I see at least one a week.

I realise (with the benefit of hindsight) that I have been quite unforgivably
rude and I am truly sorry for that.  So let me try once more and for the last
time.  I have nothing to say about the above point except that it is surely not
a problem with TeX per se, but the person who forgot to send all the files.

> Wrong.  A dvi file is an intermediate, not the final output.  I would need
> to create 100 different final output files for 100 different devices.
> With PostScript I need *ONE* final output file.  And the PostScript
> formatters for TeX have this nasty habit of creating resolution and 'color'
> (write white, write black) dependent output files.  It is not necessary,
> but for some reason it happenned.
> 
> Please, let's stop comparing oranges to apples.  TeX is device dependent
> as any single output file works only with a narrow range of devices.
> PostScript output from a program that truly uses the language (and does
> not use the 'rasterimage' operator) is what is meant by device
> independence. 
> 

I can see that we are talking at cross purposes here.  You are saying that .dvi
is not really that device independent if one needs to use a device driver to
produce output on a particular device.  When you say "any single output file
works only with a narrow range of devices" isn't that sort of tautological? In
other words:

1. If I send you a .tex file and you don't have TeX, you are stuck.
2. If I send you a .dvi file and you don't have dvi-to-whatever, you are stuck.
3. If I send you a PCL file and you don't have an HP compatible laser printer,
   you are stuck.
4. If I send you a .ps file and you don't have a postscript printer, you are
   stuck.

If that is your point, then that is true of any other word processor.  Note
that if I convert my dvi file to a postscript file and send you that, you will
be able to print to a postscript printer.  Trust me, I do it all the time.

> 
> I only know of one that takes that much - Word for Windows.  All the rest
> are 5-12 Mb.  Please get your facts straight.
> 

Well, I used to have wordperfect for windows and amipro for windows on my hard
disk.  Both of them took about 10--12 megabytes each.  Even wordperfect for dos
takes about 4--5 megabytes.  Am I so far off the mark?

>> TeX has no "official", i.e., telephone, support.  Neither has Emacs, GCC,
>>Ghostscript, X-Windows, ...  What is your suggestion regarding these other
>>softwares?
> 
> Nobody brought those up - this whole thread has been TeX vs. real 
> word-processors and layout programs.  Please keep to the subject.
> 

With all due respect, you did.  Since you said that TeX has this hidden cost
(the lack of official support), I thought that argument should apply equally
well to all the countless other `unsupported' free softwares.

  I have no private agenda.  I am just a user of TeX.  As others have already
said in this thread, if you are an expert in DTP, you can produce beautiful
output with Frame or whatever.  If you just want to type your papers with the
minimum fuss, TeX *is* a very good choice.  To get comparably good output with
a WYSIWYG program, you need to put in *a lot of work*!  If you don't see the
advantages of a markup language (under some circumstances), I have nothing more
to say except that I hope I never get to be one of `your' users.
-- 

Sunando Sen 

Department of Economics                Telephone:(212) 998-8960
New York University                    Internet: sens@acfcluster.nyu.edu
269 Mercer Street, 7th Floor           Bitnet:   sens@nyuacf
New York, NY 10003
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy