home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!nuug!nntp.uio.no!rolfl
- From: rolfl@ulrik.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren)
- Subject: Re: Which is better, OzTeX or Textures?
- In-Reply-To: tim@maths.tcd.ie's message of Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:55:18 GMT
- Message-ID: <ROLFL.93Jan26102735@ulrik.uio.no>
- Sender: news@ulrik.uio.no (Mr News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ulrik
- Organization: Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo, Norge
- References: <1993Jan21.181657.7128@hubcap.clemson.edu> <30746@castle.ed.ac.uk>
- <1993Jan26.015518.12345@maths.tcd.ie>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:27:35 GMT
- Lines: 34
-
- In article <1993Jan26.015518.12345@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
- > My impression is that Macky people prefer TeXtures,
- > while Unix people are happier with OzTeX,
- > where they feel they have more control.
- >
- > Incidentally, have you used both?
- > Very few people have, in my experience.
- > (I used TeXtures 3 or 4 years ago,
- > and was impressed,
- > but also annoyed that I could not use fonts
- > from elsewhere.
- > Has that changed?)
- >
- >
-
- I've used both.
-
- I prefer Textures because
-
- Its memory model is such that you don't need to reconfigure it for
- huge documents the way you have to with OzTeX; our UNIX BigTeX
- chokes on the PSTricks (by tvz@princeton.edu) while Textures very
- arrogantly has no problems with it
-
- It comes with PostScript version of the TeX fonts, so you don't
- need to keep bitmap fonts at various sizes
-
- It's a drawback that there's no simple way to convert bitmap (pk) fonts
- to Textures fonts. But I don't consider it a big drawback.
-
- --
- Rolf Lindgren | "The opinions expressed above are
- 616 Bjerke Studentheim | not necessarily those of anyone"
- N-0589 OSLO 5 | rolf.lindgren@usit.uio.no
-