Thread: MathType

Originally Posted by goldbh

And it don't work with HP printers! running Vista. But thinks again, what does work with Vista?

Can you provide some more context, this seems a bit improbable, maybe with more explanation we can sort out the problem, or if not at least understand what is going on.

RonL

Originally Posted by goldbh

And it don't work with HP printers! running Vista. But thinks again, what does work with Vista?

I don't think your HP printer is the problem.
The printer driver however is a likely culprit, as you may not have the Vista one installed.

MathType is expensive, looks ugly and totally amateurish, in my opinion.

Microsoft Office: $100-200
MathType: $97


Here is a much better and totally free system:

-OpenOffice.org: Free, open-source office package. It is way better than MS Office.

-MikTeX: A free LaTeX implementation for Windows.

-GhostScript: A free PS and PDF interpreter.

-MSYS: Open-source, minimal portable o/s interface.

And finally:
-OpenOffice.org LaTeX Plugin (OooLaTeX)


Links for these free software are here:

-OpenOffice.org
-MikTeX
-GhostScript
-MSYS 1.0.10
-OooLaTeX

Now you can install them in the order above and all you have to do is to show OooLaTeX where GhostScript, MikTeX and MSYS are. Then you can use it =)


Result:

Originally Posted by wingless

MathType is expensive, looks ugly and totally amateurish, in my opinion.

LaTeX is for mathematicians. MathType is for physicists.

Originally Posted by wingless

MathType looks ugly and totally amateurish, in my opinion.

Yes, it useful to generate LaTeX codes.

Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker

LaTeX is for mathematicians. MathType is for physicists.

I'm not a Physicist, but it's really comfortable to generate faster LaTeX codes.

Originally Posted by wingless

MathType is expensive, looks ugly and totally amateurish, in my opinion.

Yes, Wingless, that LaTeX integral does look very nice. However, in order to have a fair comparison of the look of LaTeX vs. the look of MathType, you need to be using the same fonts. MathType includes the Euclid font set, which looks similar to LaTeX's Computer Modern font. Also, you didn't use an "expanding" integral symbol in your MathType equation. Here's a better comparison, using the same equation you used.



The LaTeX doesn't look as crisp as the MathType equation, but that's because it's a screen shot. Normally it would look sharper than that, but that's not the point. The point is that if this is the look you want, you can almost achieve an identical look with MathType as what you get with LaTeX.

BTW, for MathType users, you create an expanding integral by holding down the Shift key when you click on the integral template in the palette. Don't use this when you're using MathType to create LaTeX though, because it will give you a translation error. Just use the normal integral, and the LaTeX renderer will expand it if necessary.

Bob Mathews

Originally Posted by Mr.MathType

The point is that if this is the look you want, you can almost achieve an identical look with MathType as what you get with LaTeX.

No, you can't achieve an almost identical look. MathType is not even close to the aesthetic look of LaTeX. Yes, MathType is useful for creating LaTeX formulas and is enough for posting on web. But there are tons of software that do such stuff for free. If I'm going to pay $97 for a software, it should have some unique and useful features.