Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!sarah!bingnews!vaxu.cc.binghamton.edu!kap1
From: kap1@carol.math.binghamton.edu (Dietrich Kappe)
Subject: Re: Textures vs OzTeX
In-Reply-To: chase@igor.princeton.edu's message of 21 Apr 91 03:17:45 GMT
Message-ID: <KAP1.91Apr21131644@carol.math.binghamton.edu>
Sender: usenet@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Mr UseNet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: math-gw.cc.binghamton.edu
Organization: /users/kap1/.organization
References: <8522@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 21 Apr 91 13:16:44

>I am interested in a comparison of Textures versus OzTeX. 
>Specifically I am interested in the advantages of Textures 
>(version 1.3) to know if it is a worthwhile investment as 
>compared to the public domain OzTeX. 

I've used both packages and determined the following: OzTeX is better and 
certainly cheaper. :-)

The reasons for this conclusion:

o	OzTeX uses unmodified pk files.  Therefor you can download pk font
	files directly from a unix box without having to change them to 
	FONT files. (A hairy proposition, if you don't have MPW or 
	access to a UNIX box).

o	OzTeX, although slower, is in my opinion slicker, i.e. the more
	polished (sp?) product.

o	OzTeX will produce postscript files directly, including any
	mac-postscript files specified by the \special command. Therefor
	it is not necessary to use the \psfig package.

o	Using DVI272IMG (or something like that) you can print to a
	non-postscript print, and include PICT files similar to the
	mac-postscript inclusion mechanism.

Basically, I don't see any reason to *buy* a TeX product when such a good
PD product is available. Note: OzTeX is not amateurish by any stretch of the imagination.  I've never gotten a system bomb from using it, something I can't
claim for Textures.

Hope this helps,

Dietrich Kappe
kap1@math.binghamton.edu