🚀 go-pugleaf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu Fri May  3 18:54:23 1991
 
I've used both Deltagraph and Kaleidagraph and right off, I
can safely say both are marked improvements over Cricket Graph.
(which hasn't been meaningfully upgraded since 1987 or something).
Which one is right for you depends on your needs:
 
1) Do you need 3-D graphs? Only Deltagraph offers those.
 
2) Do you have *lots* (thousands) of points? Deltagraph is
flakier on large data sets (as in those taking up 500K+ of
disk space). Also, it doesn't give you control over the number
of tick marks (except turning them off completely,
so if you have two many categories, you end
up with a solid mass of tick marks along the x-axis.
   In general, Kaleidagraph offers much finer control over the
appearance of the graphs. Another annoying thing is that
Deltagraph files blow up in size pretty quickly. And it's
pretty stupid in updating the screen (updates *everything*
even if you just change the font of the label, for instance)
which again can be annoying if you're working with large data
sets. (Actually, Kaleidagraph can be a bit slow too. And both
are still much better than CricketGraph.)
 
3) Deltagraph can export the files EPS files, which is mighty
nice if you're using TeX and psfig. Importing Kaleigraph files
into other programs is sometimes an adventure. (Works in WriteNow
and Word, but not Canvas, for instance.)
 
4) Kaleigraph has extensive macro/formula capabilities that
Deltagraph doesn't.
 
  The reviews have generally favored Deltagraph, but it's also
  obvious that the reviewers aren't scientists and didn't try
  to do anything with large data files. Or need to refine the
  graph appearance too much. Deltagraph seems to have been aimed
  at business graphing applications (where you have tens not
  thousands of points); that's not to say it can't produce good
  scientific output (which, for some reason, I assume you want)
  but it does have its limitations. Kaleidagraph also has its
  weaknesses (it's kind of ugly and one can get lost in its
  myriad of dialog boxes), but it does seem amalgam of people's
  wish lists in a 2-D graphing program. My recommendation is
  to get both if you can afford them both. If you can only afford
  one, then you'll have to base your choice on your needs. They're
  both good.
--
  Kenneth Chang           | National Center for Supercomputing Applications
  kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu    |                 Consulting Office/(217)244-1144
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: nvi@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Charles C. Allen)
 
 
I used to own DeltaGraph and was disenchanted at how "business"
oriented it was.  It also had problems getting markers and error bars
centered correctly.  The interface is also somewhat clunky, with every
little change being done via its own modal dialog box.
 
 
For scientific graphs, the choices are Igor (WaveMetrics) and
Kaleidagraph (Synergy Software).  Neither is perfect, but they both
can make good, clean plots.  Neither can make z=f(x,y) 3d plots yet.
 
Charles Allen                           Internet: cca@physics.purdue.edu
Department of Physics                   HEPnet:   purdnu::allen, fnal::cca
Purdue University                       Bitnet:   cca@fnal.bitnet
West Lafayette, IN  47907-1396          talknet:  317/494-9776
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: INM501@csc1.anu.edu.au
 
        I've started using Cricket Graph some 5 years ago.  It was a great
program then.  Subsequently, I've used KaleidaGraph(KG), DeltaGraph(DG) and
a bit of WINGZ.
        If you come from a CG background, you don't need a manual to use most
feature in KG.  It is fast, reliable and neat.  I like it a lot but my
school decide to buy DG and I am now stuck with it.
        You definitely need a manual for DG.  The program is very flexiable
and you can define your own graph type.  The drawing tools are much nicer
than that of KG and CG.  The worst thing is most operation is not intuitive.
eg. double click on an axis does not allow you change the scale of the axis.
It does a lot of redrawing as in CG but is significantly faster.
        I've used a little bit of WINGZ that I don't claim to be an expert.
DG feels like a cut down version of WINGZ to me and is defintely much cheaper.
 
        I guess the bottom line is: what sort of graph do you want to plot.
For simple scatter, column, graph, KG is the best.  All operations are faster
compare to the other packages.  The best thing I like is the flexibilties of
the input file.  If you want flexibilties in graphs, DG may be a better choice.
I would buy WINGZ is I have money to spare.
 
Ida
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: hoepfner@heawk1 (Patrick Hoepfner)
 
   We use KaleidaGraph and Igor.  These are best for scientific uses.
They both will let you set up multiple graphs on the same page.  Igor
uses scripts and seems to be more powerful but it isn't as slick as
KaleidaGraph.  Neigher of these do 3D graphs.
 
   I just read an article some time back about meaningless graphs done
for the sake of that 'gee whiz' look.  The author questioned if a 3D
pie chart gave the audiance any more information than the 2D variety.
The author suggested that clean and simple is better than cluttered
and overdone.
 
      +--------------------------+---------------------------------------+
     /    Patrick Hoepfner       |    NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center    \
    / America Online: PatrickH9  | Internet: hoepfner@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov \
   +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------+