Slashdot Mirror
MS Word 2010 Takes On TeX
alphabetsoup writes "Office 2010 Technology preview was leaked a few days back. With its leak, a feature which was rumored to be present can now be confirmed. Office 2010 finally adds support for Advanced Typographic features (ligatures, number forms, alternates, etc.) of OpenType, allowing one to create documents so far possible only in TeX or InDesign. Between this, the new equation editor and styles, what are the chances of Word replacing LaTeX as the editor of choice in academia?"
Something usually free is already widely used.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
... at least as long as its justified text is as horrible as it is now.
If Word 2010 does this extremely well, perhaps they deserve to become the editor of choice.
How well does OpenOffice.org do this?
The guys who need this stuff are already geeky, and why would geeky guys use something "for pay" that comes out of a budget? And since this will be in a proprietary format, why would they risk these documents becoming unreadable?
Think about it, in almost all universities the Faculty of Arts and Social Science is the biggest faculty by size. Word is already the Editor of choice in Arts and Social Sciences.
For Sciences (Comp. Sci., Math, etc) most publications take Word and Latex.
I use LaTeX not only for its nice typographic properties, but because of how flexible it is. It's trivial to generate LaTeX code for automatically generating documentation, for instance. LaTeX may still be ahead in a couple areas (e.g., citations. Does Word beat out BibTeX yet?), but I'm not sure. As long as Word is GUI-based, I can't see it ever being anywhere near as flexible as LaTeX is.
This is still very cool though. I hate seeing flyers and menus and then that scream from 20 feet away "I WAS MADE IN WORD! MY TYPOGRAPHY WILL BURN YOUR EYES!" Anything that improves the quality of print around me is a good thing, I say.
So it can do something LaTex so what? It can also do HTML but I don't see Adobe or any other web writing tool throwing in the towel.
The big question is can it write it effectively. Word already has the tendency of turning a basic document into a code of spaghetti when saved as HTML. Somehow I don't see this being any different
'Office 2010 finally adds support for Advanced Typographic features (ligatures, number forms, alternates, etc.) of OpenType, allowing one to create documents so far possible only in TeX or InDesign. Between this, the new equation editor and styles, what are the chances of Word replacing LaTeX as the editor of choice in academia?"'
About zero, but when will MS come after TeX for patent royalties on Microsoft OpenType ?
davecb5620@gmail.com
There is not a question about Word taking over from LaTeX in academia since Word already dominates academia.
In most disciplines in academia (all of the humanities and social sciences for example) no one has heard of TeX or LaTeX, and people mostly don't have the technical skills to use either program easily. And they are _already_ all using Word.
By contrast, in mathematics and other disciplines where LaTeX is a good solution, it is very hard to imagine something as clunky, bug prone, bloated and hard to use as Word taking over from something robust and easy to use (if you think the way mathematicians think) like LaTeX.
In earth science one gets the whole culture clash between the hard-core physics/computer types who like LaTeX and the biologist/ecologist types who like Word. I get a little depressed by the extent to which Word seems to be replacing LaTeX, especially given how much less nice the final result looks. If MS can really improve the typesetting then the "Not a chance" posts above are likely to prove wrong once Word 2010 becomes prevalent.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
TeX won't be replaced by Word because TeX's whole purpose is to provide a way to separate content and layout. Publishers care about this because the same content can be reshaped to fit their typesetting needs. Word is by its very nature a WYSIWYG. Why would publishers leave established infrastructure and a seamless way of assuring documents meet their typesetting needs to trust layout to amateurs and receive files which must be manually edited in order to modify layout?
Office will take over from TeX when (at the least)
* It works on Linux (which lots of academics use.
* It works well with version control, making it easy to merge edits made by different people
* It is easy to generate tables from scripts and glue them into the document
* It is easy to take a pre-written document and put it in a new style.
Now, it's possible Office already does a few of those, and it's also very possible TeX does an awful lot more than that.
The cost isn't really that much of an issue for academics, as every university tends to have a site-licence for Office and other apps. Despite this, I still never use it.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
I'd say the odds of MS Word replacing LaTeX are about the same as Microsoft releasing the source to Word so we can fix problems and add features as we need them.
A lot of these open source projects grew out of a direct need. There was a vacuum to be filled. The need shaped what the product wound up being. Trying to pound the square peg of MS Word into the round hole LaTeX fills is most likely impossible.
Support or not, they're just too different.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Some of the folks using TeX are also owners of Mathematica, IDL and other software that costs thousands of dollars per license -- because it increases their productivity.
It's not an issue of cost, it's an issue of the benefit for the cost -- and I don't think there will be the benefit unless MS Word decouples the content from the presentation. (which allows the TeX users to write their paper once, and then have it formatted correctly for whatever journal it'll be published in) As for becoming unreadable -- so long as you can export it to PDF, Post Script, or whatever, you're fine for archiving.
And would MS Word replace InDesign? I don't think so, but if they've got this support in MS Word, I can only assume they'll bring it over to MS Publisher, and they might be able to pick up some users.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Or, in more Slashdot terms:
is a lot easier to use
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You've obviously never used TROFF or its kin.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In which case TeX is again the preferred tool to use, since the publisher can simply provide a class file with some basic instruction on how to use it, and the authors/editors can come up with a well formatted camera ready document simply by following the (usually one page of) instructions.
AccountKiller
Right. The difference being that Word doesn't always truly separate content from presentation, nor does it enforce any separation of content from presentation.
IOW, TeX is like making a webpage using HTML 4 strict with a text editor, and Word is like making a webpage in Microsoft FrontPage.
My blog
As a user of LyX, I generally agree. However, it still is in need of improvement in a variety of areas. In particular, if you have to prepare a document that needs to be formatted in a very specific way, you better hope for one of the following:
1) the format is simple, so not much work involved in setting it up.
2) one of the default templates/options gives you what you need (optionally append #1 here for variations if needed)
3) you've been provided a template (I wish...but very unlikely).
4) you are a wizard at TeX/LaTeX/LyX, and/or you can become one (RTFM, Google, etc.).
Option #4 is available to everyone with the learning capacity, inclination, and time to spend on it. Personally, I'm lacking somewhat in at least the latter two categories (and perhaps the former as well, as I've found setting up/configuring documents in LyX to be ridiculously frustrating). I've started using LaTeX recently, but only because I could only find a template for what I needed in only that format, and unfortunately importing/exporting LaTeX is not an option (it tends to get things pretty messed up).
I think it means exactly what he think it means. I think that what you mean is it is much harder to learn.
AccountKiller
actually it is. if you don't remember the command for whatever, you're screwed. Or you have to search for it. With a GUI you have visual cues and get to use the sense that humans have become most accustomed to using when searching (sight). Eventually, you may have to resort to a Google search, but at least you have a chance of finding it before firing off your 'how the hell do i X' search string.
People have little care or concern over what results are deemed "professional".
There are entire books and manuals that aren't made with the "proper" tools, because most people can't comprehend why Word or Publisher don't meet the criteria for "professional" results. With Publisher, it usually takes the harsh step of producing their document, from the raw material delivered by the customer.
"It looks fine on my Inkjet at home! Why does it look like so much dogshit on the floor?"
With Word, it's usually "good enough" for most people, even though the outcome isn't what you or they would really like. Give a Tech Writer a copy of Word, and they may "make-do", but I doubt you'll find many who prefer it to FrameMaker, InDesign, or even Pagemaker. That same Tech Writer will churn out a document with Word, and because it's "good enough", it will fly around the Globe, and even make it out as trade conference detritus or long-lived corporate gospel.
TeX, on the other hand, is not something most people care about learning. You *must* learn it to be able to use it confidently. There's no "good enough" with TeX - it either works, or it doesn't.
TeX is a Science. Word is a Comedy. People like comedy.
Funny, I constantly find myself wishing Office 2k7 had some form of command-line with tab-completion and -suggestion so I could find the commands they hid in random ribbon pages as either a large, small, or worded entry, in a popup screen somewhere, or just outright hid (ugh.)
Phew - the shit I have seen crammed into a spreadsheet.. With pride.
Any higher function than SUM should require certification.
"You got a license for that Pivot Table, Son?"
Features on top of features, with no real signposts to guide their implementation. Gag.
...I work at the Economics Research Institute at UNAM, Mexico's (and Latin America's) largest university. Researchers here are social scientists â" Their texts do include the ocassional formula, yes, but they mainly deal with straight text. Even so, I am painfully aware on how inconvenient a word-processor-minded program can be for them (i.e. try to get them to distinguish between cosmetic and semantic tagging â" No way). They literally use the computer as a fancy typewriter.
I have shown LyX to a couple of people, and are initially interested, even more looking at the quality of the results... But after I mention it cannot import (with formatting) Word documents, and that they won't be able to share their works (except as an unmodifiable PDF) with other colleagues, they go back to what they already know.
So, no, TeX is not necessarily widely used in all of academia. Just in the portion we, the computer-minded geeks, like looking at.
I have had to convert multi-dozen page Publisher and Word documents into 'real' formats.
This pain comes at a price. See the 'Setup Fees' line item on your invoice. :)
"I know you could buy your own copy of $ProTool for that price, and for the sake of our business relationship, it's what we encourage you to do."
RIPs don't like Microsoft, no matter what kind of goofy pseudo-filter you pipe them through.
Manual (camera) seps are an alternative, and harder to find by the year.
Which they don't.
In chemistry and many branches of engineering, Word already is more popular than LaTeX.
In mathematics, and most branches of physics, LaTeX is much more popular than Word, and with very good reason. I have no idea of what the proposed changes are for Word 2010, but I somehow doubt that the current painful way of using the equation editor is likely to be very attractive to these practitioners. LaTeX's superior fontwork also is a major advantage that Word currently cannot match.
The third issue is platform independence. Though versions of Word exist for Mac, Pages has come along very rapidly in the last 2-3 years, and will likely fragment the Mac market. Mac and Linux are both gaining market share (usually at the expense of Windows, and especially in academic settings), so unless Word addresses problems with the WYSIWYG method of entering equations (maybe steal some ideas from TeXMacs), and makes a concerted push on these two platforms (its non-existent on Linux), I do not see how it can make a dent in the traditional strongholds of LaTeX.
Most journals do not accept MS 2007 submissions (even the Word friendly publishing houses), let alone MS 2010.
As I'm typing this reply, I'm taking a break from typesetting the math paper with LaTeX. So, a couple of things come to mind, immediately. First, LaTeX is 'what you mean is what you get', not 'what you see is what you get'. In LaTeX I actually *say* what I want, rather than using the GUI. Does it matter? Yes. If I need to choose some spacing (rather than letting it to default), I can make my choice precisely, and say it so (e.g., 1pt, meaning 1 point). And in general, the strongest feature of (La)TeX: you have a complete control on the layout. You can setup the formulas any way you want. Period. Next, consider the following example. You need to use greek letters. In GUI (such as MS products), you have to pull down menu, find the option greek letters, select the one you need. In LaTeX I simply type \alpha, or \beta, or whatever. And the choices of fonts I got! Mmmm So once I've tried LaTeX I simply coudln't get back to GUI-based tools. Well, I can go on and on. And the last by not least: many free integrated editors/compilers for LaTeX. My favorite is Emacs/Auctex.
Now I'm talking about mathematicians, not 'academia' in general. If you are into some staff like philosophy or history, you'll be just fine with MS.
In my experience, in Word you layout your document exactly how you want it to be viewed, make some minor change, again layout your document, make another change which again screws up your layout, and repeat throughout the editing process. What a waste of time.
I hate Word, and use it rarely. Those that like it can have it.
I had always wondered when law firms finally made the switch from WP to Word. IIRC, the only reason WP hung on for so long there was the installed base of templates. That points to why a law office can make Word work. Most of their output is boilerplate, cast within simple, strict formats, and no points for beauty. The law never started with TeX, InDesign, etc, so it's no surprise they went with Word.
Not that some of academia or small publishers won't try the new Word features, but I wager they won't like it. The core argument against using a Wysiwyg tool for research papers - that the authors get distracted by spending too much time dicking with the format - still stands. And, last I tried, Word still doesn't play nice with large, heavily formatted documents.
Luke, help me take this mask off
need to catch up.
Many of you are talking about complaints that haven't been valid in Word for a few years now.
The Tex comparisons are fair, at this time. This article is about how MS is going after LaTex.
If you think that can't do it, there was a time word perfect was on every desktop.
Granted, given their record they won't have it right until 2014.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
so it costs the most precious thing of all?
To use any word processor to create "good" (for some definitions of "good") quality documents with proper structuring, it takes time to learn. Personally, I've probably wasted more time fighting MS Word's formatting (e.g., arbitrary bullet indentation changes, anyone?) over the years than the time it took me to learn enough LaTeX to be happy and productive.
Open Source: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
They have got their training. Learning to write in Word usually takes several mini-courses for a computer-negated professor. They get the basics in the end (and the Editorial Department will just have to suffer to get it all in a decent shape, but that's their job and they are getting paid for it)... They don't want your training on jurassic technology which needs to be compiled, thankyou.
The fact that it is possible (and yes, annotations are a great use for it) does not mean it is practical. It is not, in FSF terms, the preferred form for modification. If I take a professor's Word document, and do a beautiful typsesetting job for it in TeX, and hand him back the resulting PDF... He will end up giving me the printouts with red ink showing the corrections to make. That is going back in time several decades, and will hurt workflow. So, if he wants to write in Word, so be it, write in Word. The Editorial Department will... do their best to turn that crap into something publishable.
And yes, it sucks. But you get tired of swimming upstream.
Numerics never was Microsoft's expertise and you better look elsewhere. If I were an advisor or examining your theses, I'd run your data through professional software (yes, I'm saying Excel isn't "professional statistics software").
Excel was my tool of choice when doing simple algebraic problems for the duration of my Astronomy Masters. It did brilliantly. I got straight HDs on all subjects except History of Astronomy (for which a misunderstanding with the lecturer over requirements). I never found a bug in Excel, despite always re-checking and sanity checking everything before handing it in. It doesn't matter if you're using an abacus, a hand calculator, Excel, or Mathematica. You have to check that the answers make sense. If I was consistently finding Excel bugs, I'd have ditched it.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
So I've got a $BIGNUM of screws to screw in and I could use either a screwdriver or a power tool, which I don't know how to use yet.
Clearly the screwdriver is the superior option, because I have better things to do than wasting my time learning tools.