🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4nv72n$cku@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>, mdj@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au
(Matt) wrote:

> : |>If  you  run  ANY  of  those  so-called  "modern  age" wordprocessors on
> : |>anything  less  than  a  fucking  P160, changing a font from "normal" to
> : |>"bold"  takes  forever.  And  it  won't get any better because all those
> : |>programs  are derived from earlier versions simply by adding more sloppy
> : |>code    to  an  already  sloppy  program.  You'll  end  up  with  a  1Gb
> : |>wordprocessor  that  eats  ALL  your resources while doing NOTHING. Even
> : |>Emacs will laugh at it. Your modern age is 20 years behind Unix.
> 
> Hehe, too true. Give me that p160, a unix OS to run on it, vi, tex and
> 20 terminals, and 20 ppl will be laying out documents, 20 times as fast,
> 1/20th the cost.

Well, you don't have to run Unix to have a nice TeX environment. Textures
on the Macintosh is, IMHO, the best TeX ever made. It *is* kinda bizarre
to use a Mac and TeX...most of the people I know who use Macs think it is
very strange! But, the quality of the output, the superb portability of
the documents and the industrial strength capabilities make it worthwhile.

I used to (circa 1987) have people go into shock when they saw that my
full Textures install was about 6 megs, mostly fonts. Then Word 3(?) took
a lot less space. Now Textures still takes 6-8 megs, whilst Word or
WordPerfect can easily destroy 25-30 megs of disc space. Textures also
runs in considerably less memory!

The strange thing is that TeX, just by remaining true to its origins, has
managed to become the "lean and mean" alternative to the megabloat
wordprocessors that are now served up to the public. This is especially
strange since I remember when TeX was only considered suitable for
"mainframes"!!