Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!sjl
From: sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Why troff?
Message-ID: <2442@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3-Feb-87 15:41:08 EST
Article-I.D.: eagle.2442
Posted: Tue Feb  3 15:41:08 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 06:40:33 EST
References: <362@linus.UUCP> <7592@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur)
Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK
Lines: 20
Keywords: TeX, troff

In article <7592@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> My question is this - why does anyone continue to use troff? ...
>
....
>
>Another consideration is that troff will fit in a 16-bit machine, and TeX
>hasn't a prayer of doing so.  (Yes, there are some subsets that will, but
>not the whole thing.)  This issue is diminishing in importance, but it's
>not trivial.
>

	Come now, I have TeX on an IBM pc, and it's a lot faster than
	on a VAX. You can also get TeX for the Mac, Atari ST1040 and
	Amiga. There may be others, but those are the ones I know of.
	The only one I have used is on the IBM pc, and that certainly
	seems to be a full implementation.

	sean

	sjl@ukc.ac.uk