Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!cliu@copper.ucs.indiana.edu From: chang hsu liu Subject: Summary (Long) part 2:Graphing programs to go? Message-ID: <1991May18.052450.29878@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Sender: Organization: Indiana University Date: Sat, 18 May 91 00:24:34 -0500 Lines: 122 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 \ +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------+