Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!pasteur!ucbvax!cartan!maypo!lippin
From: lippin@maypo (The Apathist)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: FullWrite Professional Demo
Message-ID: <1515@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 21 Jan 88 05:47:58 GMT
References: <39102@sun.uucp> <2679@fluke.COM> <833@ur-tut.UUCP> <39154@sun.uucp> <2376@utastro.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: lippin@maypo.UUCP (Tom Lippincott, ..ucbvax!bosco!lippin)
Organization: SOWHAT -- Stop Oppression Without Hardly Any Trouble
Lines: 24

Recently bill@astro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) said:
>Word's implementation of formulas may not be great, but it is a whole
>lot better than MacEQN's, expecially for editing. Furthermore, it gives
>me the ability to put equations into running text, which MacEQN doesn't.
>I would have liked it better had Word's equation facility been compatible
>with TeX, but beggars can't be choosers. In any case, equations are 
>essential to my work, and for this reason I won't be buying FullWrite.

At the expo, there were two programs for WYSIWYG typesetting of
equations being demoed: "Expressionist" and "MathType."  They were
fairly similar; each had a much more believable interface than MacEqn,
and I think they each had a trimmed-down DA form.  One, and perhaps
both, could also output TeX.  I can't see choosing to use Word's stuff
over either of these.

Putting equations in running text is a function of the word processor;
both Word and FullWrite can, whereeverthe equations come from, and
MacWrite can't.

					--Tom Lippincott
					..ucbvax!bosco!lippin

	"Note that they do not so much fly, as plummet."
					--Monty Python's Flying Circus