Text in an isosceles triangle?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iChat, one man's meat ...
Next: Trouble loading page
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 Dec 2009 22:49 Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid (Hylton Boothroyd) writes: > > > That said, if I had 48 hours in every day I might well install mactex > > (which I guess would double the number of installations in u.c.s.m). > > Well, I'm using TeX (teTeX right now) since literally decades over > several machines and operating systems, even for such mundane things as > letters... and I'm pretty sure that there are others, too. Even here. LaTeX is ideal for doing letters - nothing better, if you've prepared your own local letter class file so you don't have to type in your own name and address etc. > That being said, for more ad-hoc things I tend to use Pages more and more. > It may suck as a word processor but it's a great DTP app for dummies. > And positively beautiful. Returning to fruit-salad syntax-highlighted > LaTeX source makes me cringe sometimes now. There! I said it! Yeah, but you'll get better looking output from LaTeX - although for ad-hoc layouts, LaTeX is lousy: if you can't get the layout from one of the standard packages/classes, you need a different format (or maybe a different typesetter entirely) - such as ConTeXt, so I'm told. I've tried to learn how to use Pages and failed to manage to work out how to use it just to produce a plain page of ordinary text, such as I can knock out with MacWrite II very easily. Pages does indeed suck as a WP and it's bloody hard to learn how to use to do anything. I can't use Pages for anything myself - which is very annoying, because I paid for it on the basis that I would be able to learn. In terms of usability, it's several steps behind what we had in the System 6 days: it was easier to learn to use the software back then, and I could get more use out of it. As for `beautiful' - well, in my experience, what I got with Pages was an uncontrollable mess. Any `beauty' you can coax from Pages (as with all such software) depends on the user having typographical skills. I for one do not possess the skills needed to get beautiful output using my own layout ideas. My LaTeX output looks good because the typography's done for me by LaTeX - and who cares what the artistic aesthetic appeal of the source text might appear to be? Rowland. (who's got very little time for most modern software, which is mostly a lot less usable than what he's used to) -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 Dec 2009 22:49 Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > > > Claris Works 4 did it in a few seconds: > > > > > > > http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/Picture1.gif > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...but sadly you won't be able to run it on OS 10.4 > > > > > > > > > > > > Won't it run under Classic? > > > > > > > > > > I thought it would only run up to 10.3, then they screwed it up - > > > > > but I may be mistaken, so it is worth a try. > > > > > > > > I could find out in a minute to two, but can't be bothered. > > > > 12 mounted discs later[1], and I found out. > > > > Claris Works 4 installs and runs under Classic on MacOS X 10.4.11. > > I seem to remember finding that an Intel iMac wouldn't run CW in any > shape or form. Ah - you'd need to run Sheepshaver for that. Claris Works needs MacOS <X, hence the need for Classic, but Intel Macs cann't run Classic, and certainly can't boot into MacOS 9. <sheepshaver.cebix.net/> - so Google says, but the site seems to be down at the moment from here at least (3.40am Sun, BT Internet). > If it will, perhaps I shall get some some useful work > out of it after all. Bad news, I'm afraid: CW4 works under 10.4.11, but only under Classic on PPC Macs. Classic is not available to Intel Macs, and is not available to MacOS X 10.5. Only Intel Macs can run 10.6 and above. Sheepshaver can apparently run MacOS 9.0.4. I've looked at Sheepshaver, but the instructions are such that I've not even tried installing it. Well, I've got a G4 iMac running 10.4.11 on this desk next to the Intel iMac so I can use the old stuff that's not available on modern Macs. It seemed to be the only solution to the problem of keeping up with the modern world while not losing the ability to do things that cannot be done under MacOS X 10.6 on an Intel iMac (at least, not unless you are a skilled programmer and can write your own software to do the jobs in question). Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Steve Firth on 13 Dec 2009 03:29 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Nowadays, there are forums where in each case clique excludes > those who do not subscribe to their opinions so one cannot get help in > the general case, not any more. i.e. Rowland has pissed off everyone in every forum where he could get help and no one will help him anymore.
From: Elliott Roper on 14 Dec 2009 07:31 In article <1jap7i5.itdxs8v5m50kN%hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid>, Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid> wrote: <snip with nodding agreement> > What a pleasant surprise to be using an application where I haven't > bumped into an annoying design limitation within 24 hours! > > And when for curiosity I tried to type into a freehand shape, neither > wanting it for real nor expecting it to be available, Pages quietly > declined to offer an insertion point and quietly withdrew all reference > to fonts in the toolbar. And quietly made text entry immediately > available again when I moved on to another regular shape. > > That's quality, that is. Well, I dunno whether it was quality or not, but somehow it tricked you into believing you could not fill an arbitrary space with text. I was following this thread with interest, being another LaTeX for "maths and sensible", Pages for "fun" convert from Microsoft and all its evil Words. I had no idea that Pages could fill a shape with text let alone an arbitrary shape. For that I would have fired up InDesign in all its over-featured gory. Against every article of Jobs-olatry I (furtive glance) used the help in Pages, created a custom shape with pen, and followed the instructions for inserting text. It just worked. Image fill worked just as well. I /had/ been using Omnigraffle for invitations and cards, but Pages has now won me over for that job. -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Hylton Boothroyd on 14 Dec 2009 08:16
Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > In article <1jap7i5.itdxs8v5m50kN%hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid>, > Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.boothroyd(a)null.c0m.invalid> wrote: > < further snip > > > And when for curiosity I tried to type into a freehand shape, neither > > wanting it for real nor expecting it to be available, Pages quietly > > declined to offer an insertion point and quietly withdrew all reference > > to fonts in the toolbar. And quietly made text entry immediately > > available again when I moved on to another regular shape. > > > > That's quality, that is. > > Well, I dunno whether it was quality or not, but somehow it tricked you > into believing you could not fill an arbitrary space with text. > > I was following this thread with interest, being another LaTeX for > "maths and sensible", Pages for "fun" convert from Microsoft and all > its evil Words. I had no idea that Pages could fill a shape with text > let alone an arbitrary shape. For that I would have fired up InDesign > in all its over-featured gory. > > Against every article of Jobs-olatry I (furtive glance) used the help > in Pages, created a custom shape with pen, and followed the > instructions for inserting text. It just worked. Image fill worked just > as well. I /had/ been using Omnigraffle for invitations and cards, but > Pages has now won me over for that job. And being so tricked reveals a subtle difference between provided shapes and freehand shapes. You can select a standard shape by clicking on it anywhere. So can I. But I can only select a freehand shape by clicking precisely on the boundary line (OS 10.4.11). You can initiate text entry by double-clicking anywhere in a standard shape. So can I. But I can only initiate text entry by double-clicking precisely on the boundary line. Reconstruction. In my trials, after getting the freehand shape selected with some difficulty which I'd noticed but not fathomed, I'd always double-clicked in the body, and therefore I'd always simply deselected the freehand shape instead of initiating text entry. Between us, QED! Thanks -- Hylton |