From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: (was: Re: A Word Processor for Linux) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1993 12:46:01 GMT
jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov writes:
>But seriously, everyone has their own preferences..
I agree
>.personally I prefer
>the combination of LaTeX, emacs, xfig, ghostview, and dvips because:
Well, I will compare some of your points to WordPerfect 5.1 for Unix.
> 1) The cost of the whole system is my time spent installing it...I'd have
> to spend time installing MS Word too, *and* I'd have to pay Bill the Gates
> a few hundred dollars for the honor of using it...
As far as I know MS Word does not run under Unix, so we aren't interested.
> 2) The printed output tends to be of superior quality...
Compared to what? I am extremely impressed with what we produce here.
> 3) Easy to enter and modify equations...something word processors are only now
> begining to be able to do effectively...and when printed, the equations
> *look* good...
Haven't had the need to use equations, but they do appear to work under 5.1.
> 4) I can use the same editor (emacs) to develop my software *and* edit my
> reports & documentation. Switching between editing environments reduces
> productivity because not only do you have to think of what you're typing,
> you have to *think* of how to get the editor to perform basic functions
> like saving a file, or reading in a new one...and since emacs is the *only*
> editor that is on the 10 different machines/environments I use on a regular
> basis...
It depends on if you need a text editor or a word-processor. I personally use
vi for writing programs and editing files, and WordPerfect for everything
else. However, I could use WordPerfect quite easily for writing programs
and such while vica-versa for vi is pretty much a nightmare. WordPerfect is
available for most Unix environments as well as MS-"DOS", Apple, Amiga, etc...
> 5) I *don't* have to worry about carefully checking an entire document just because
> I want the thing using 10pt instead of 12pt fonts as a basis. Just recently
> the company secretary wasted an hour manually checking and reformating 75
> bibliographic citations in a paper when we went from 10pt type to 11pt type
> just because MS Word was inconsistent in how it handled 10pt vs. 11pt
Never seen such a problem under WordPerfect. I change large documents from
one typeface or font to another all the time. Takes about 5 seconds.
> 6) I can tell LaTeX \cite{joe_blow} and it will automagically format a citation
> and stick it in the bibliography and put the number of that citation in the
> right spot (and make sure the number of the citation matches the number in the
> text through multiple revisions of the paper...). Using bibtex, it will also
> find and retrieve the citation from a bibliographic
> database. Equation numbering and referencing is just as easy...
WordPerfect also has tools to assist with footnotes, citations, etc...
> 7) I can tell latex \tableofcontents and it will autmatically generate a
> *correct* table of contents, I don't have to go back and revise it
> manually to make sure the page numbers are correct. Same thing with
> \listoftables and \listoffigures.
WordPerfect also can generate table of contents and indexes. It can be
updated automatically also; page numbers and all.
> 8) Drawings are a breeze to create with xfig. Including these drawings, or
> pictures, or any other Postscript file in a LaTeX document is straight
> forward. LaTex will also number the figure and remember which page
> it was on for use in the list of figures...
WordPerfect supports importing countless different graphics formats for
graphics boxes and figures. Unfortunately, you can't DESIGN the images in
WP though.
> 9) With ghostview I can preview the document and print the whole thing or
> just selected pages...
Same with WP. Except WP runs all text terminals plus consoles plus
graphics terminals plus Xterminals. Even on the Wy160, it can display a
preview in true graphics mode. In WP you have several ways to print, and
printing to non-postscript printers is NEVER a problem.
> 10) Transfering documents between different machines and O/Ss is fairly easy...
> the files are all straight ASCII text, with no control characters to
> be misinterpreted...
WordPerfect's file format is identical between all its different platforms.
I have transfered files between many different machines. You can also
save as a dozen of OTHER formats.
> 11) Many scientific journals accept TeX/LaTeX/AMSTeX files electronically
> for submissions to their journals...
WP can't help there.
>So basically, the combination of the above tools provides a text processing
>environment that can do everything and more that MS Word, or WordPerfect can
>do...
It can do a lot of things WP can do, can some things WP can't- but there are a
lot of things WP can do those can't. The point is, like you said at the start,
different strokes for different folks. I guess I sound like a broken record
on my next statement- but if Linux supported COFF, I and others who like
WordPerfect could choose to run it if we wanted.
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/