NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/text/tex/14336

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 3.1 KB

Xref: sparky comp.text.tex:14336 comp.sys.mac.apps:18792
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex,comp.sys.mac.apps
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!sun4nl!ruuinf!ruunfs.fys.ruu.nl!walsteyn
From: [e-mail] (Fred Walsteijn)
Subject: Re: Experiences with DirectTeX (vs OzTeX)?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:38:07 GMT
Lines: 66

In <[e-mail]> Tim Larkin <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> John Zic,
>[e-mail] writes:
>>What are _your_ reasons for using DirectTeX over OzTeX? I need to be
>>convinced that the pain of swapping over is going to be worthwhile...
>1. DirectTeX supports virtual fonts; OzTeX does not.
>2. I have the impression (not measured) that DirectTeX runs faster than
>OzTeX; however, DirectTeX runs as an MPW shell, so it must launch the TeX
>compiler, previewer, and printer every time you use one; this launching
>adds a small overhead to each function.


I believe that a ``launch-overhead'' is present only the first time you
execute an MPW tool.  The MPW Shell keeps tools in memory, so the 2nd time
you TeX your document should be slightly faster.
The remaining overhead is that due to some tiny scripts executed each time
you let DirectTeX do something.


>3. DirectTeX includes the complete suite of TeX programs, including
>MetaFont, the font format converters, as well as WEB and CWEB.
>4. The TeXShell that I picked up for running DirectTeX can be used for
>running other MPW utilities, such as MPW GAWK.


In fact, I think that the TeXShell is just the MPW Shell 3.2 with a
different name (overtyped in the Finder).


>5. The TeXShell has its own editor; if you like it, then you don't need
>to run a separate one, as you must do with OzTeX.


Yep, the TeXShell == MPW. (The best editor on the Mac IMHO. I use it
with OzTeX too...)


>6. DirectTeX has a facility for automatically building from MF files the
>missing fonts that a document requires.
>7. DirectTeX has a nicer \special for working with PostScript.
>Conclusion: If you only want to run TeX itself, and you don't need
>virtual
>fonts, and you have all the PK fonts you need, don't bother to switch. If
>you have crashed up against some of the limitations of OzTeX, then
>consider DirectTeX.
>Tim Larkin
>Federal Nutrition Laboratory
>Tower Road
>Ithaca, New York
>[e-mail]
>607-255-7008


A final note: I observed some differences in output from OzTeX and DirectTeX.
For example, both OzTeX and Unix C-TeX produce ROMAN bold digits in:

     {\em  hello this is a bold number:  \bf  12345 }

DirectTeX produces an ITALIC bold number ...

Greetings,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Walsteijn                                | Internet: [e-mail]
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research | FAX:      [phone]
Utrecht University, The Netherlands           | Phone:    [phone]