🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BAMMI.90Feb10165334@dsrgsun.ces.CWRU.Edu> bammi@dsrgsun.ces.CWRU.Edu (Jwahar R. Bammi) writes:
>In article <3554@tahoe.unr.edu> mikew@wheeler.wrcr.unr.edu (Mike Whitbeck) writes:
>  .......
>> IMHO TeX + postscript beats almost all the of the so-called
>> DTP's available commercially... and it's (almost)FREE!
>i agree completely. my biggest complaint with all the wysiwyg  type programs
>is "what you see is ALL you get" (ie. no extensibility, very limited
>customization possibilities, and too much clickity-clacking with the
>mouse to do anything useful.).

	I love TeX, for doing text typesetting.  I think that TeX is
great for doing papers and what-not but for signs and newsletter type
publications a WYSIWYG is best.  I use TeX for doing my academic papers
and Calamus for doing newsletters and signs.  It is not trivial to
move blocks of text around in TeX, leaving appropriate room for graphics
and what-not.  A WYSISYG allows you to visualize the placement of
layout objects and include (visually!) graphics in your documents.
Althought TeX can do this it is a non-triavial task that is handled better
with a WYSIWYG, such as Calamus.  Mind you, it takes TeX about 30 sec to
print a 300dpi page and Calamus about 3 min!  TeX has its uses; it does
*text typesetting in solid blocks* much better than a WYSIWYG and a DTP
is suited better to layout type tasks.  Comparing a DTP to TeX is really
like comparing apples and oranges - each is designed for different 
purposed (TeX for typesetting, DTPs for layout).  As a side note, I
prefer the Computer Mondern fonts to, say, Times Roman.  Many people
argue with me about this...


Brett L Maraldo


-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo