Xref: utzoo sci.physics:13111 comp.text:6883
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!virtue!cantva!phys169
From: PHYS169@canterbury.ac.nz (Mark Aitchison, U of Canty; Physics)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,comp.text,aus.computers
Subject: Re: Need advice on scientific word processing software package
Message-ID: <7789@canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: 31 May 90 15:29:38 GMT
References: <1990May24.004731.14182@cbnewsd.att.com> <90148.220707GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET>
Lines: 20

In article <90148.220707GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET>, GILLA@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Arnold G. Gill) writes:
> In article <1990May28.174638.1464@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
> shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) says:
>>
>>Excuse me, but what's wrong with our friends, troff, eqn and tbl?
>      It would be much shorter to ask what is right with them.  That you could
> condense to one word - *NOTHING*.
>      After using ChiWriter and TeX, nothing is easier than ChiWriter or looks
> better than TeX.  When the promised ChiWriter -> TeX finally appears, all
> your scientific word processing questions will be answered.

Does anyone consider Macintosh word-processing packages (other than Mac 
versions of TeX, etc) suitable for such documents? I get the impression the
mathematical formulae are not terribly well taken care of, but included
diagrams are much easier than with TeX, T3 (anyone using that??) and ChiWriter
or Xact.  I'm interested in something where you can see the page *with* the
graphics in place in the previewer (including Postscript into TeX doesn't seem
to do that well enough).

Mark Aitchison.