Text in an isosceles triangle?
Hylton Boothroyd
easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
isosceles triangle?
OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
Office 98.
TIA
--
Hylton
Stephen
wrote:
Create triangles for the areas you DON'T want text. Set the shape
format layout to 'Tight', and type your text between the triangles.
I.e. Imagine your triangular card laid on top of a rectangular card,
with the same base length. The bits of the rectangular card you can
see, uncovered by the triangular card are the two triangles you need
to draw.
D.M. Procida
Pages. Not free, of course, but not expensive either.
Daniele
Adrian Tuddenham
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
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Jim
> Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
>> easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
>> isosceles triangle?
>>
>> OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
>>
>> We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
>> It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
>> Office 98.
>
> 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?
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
"A Microsoft spokesman said: "We spent five years and $350million
developing a system that would make it really easy for us not to
give you your money back." The Daily Mash
Adrian Tuddenham
> On 2009-12-10, Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> >> easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> >> isosceles triangle?
> >>
> >> OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
> >>
> >> We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
> >> It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
> >> Office 98.
> >
> > 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.
Rowland McDonnell
> Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> isosceles triangle?
If `easy' includes a willingness to learn a macro instruction based
non-wysiwyg approach:
<http://www.tug.org/mactex/2009/>
and then get the TeXBook by Knuth, which contains instructions on how to
do that sort of thing (there are other approaches).
> OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
>
> We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
> It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
> Office 98.
TeX can do it. You might not like the learning curve.[1]
Rowland.
[1] No, I'm lying: you won't like the learning curve.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@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
Rowland McDonnell
> Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> > >> easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> > >> isosceles triangle?
> > >>
> > >> OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
> > >>
> > >> We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
> > >> It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
> > >> Office 98.
> > >
> > > 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.
However: can't the job be done using AppleWorks 6?
Rowland.
Adrian Tuddenham
> Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> > > >> easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> > > >> isosceles triangle?
> > > >>
> > > >> OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
> > > >>
> > > We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
> > > >> It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
> > > >> Office 98.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> However: can't the job be done using AppleWorks 6?
Very likely, but will that run under OS 10.4?.
Jim
>> > > >
>> > > > 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.
>>
>> However: can't the job be done using AppleWorks 6?
>
> Very likely, but will that run under OS 10.4?.
Dim and distant memory here, but: yes, I think it will.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@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.
However, it's not possible for me to print from Classic at all. Never
did work that one out, so CW 4 isn't useful for me.
Does anyone here know how to get printing working from Classic?
(never did get much use out of CW 4, which I paid for. The Claris Works
drawing and writing modules are nothing like as useful as MacWrite II
and MacDraw II under System 6. It's one of the reasons I became very
disillusioned with commercial software - a lot of it's not getting
better, it's getting worse as it `develops')
> > However: can't the job be done using AppleWorks 6?
>
> Very likely, but will that run under OS 10.4?.
It runs under MacOS X 10.6.2, right here, right now (really, just
launched it to make sure nothing odd's gone on lately). No worries at
all about 10.4.11 either (yep, I've used AW under 10.4.11 rather a lot).
Sometimes, AW 6 does have a sulk and won't run - crashing on take-off.
Trashing ~/Documents/Appleworks User Data seems to be the fix.
(and why oh why oh why can't they put it in ~/Library/Application
Support/AppleWorks User Data? Or at least ~/Appleworks User Data?
Pfft.)
Rowland.
[1] Didn't know where it was, so fired up all external discs connected
to our IntelMac. That's four extra. Searched, and while that was going
on, I went to the next door iLamp and told it to connect to the IntelMac
and mount all discs. Then I found CW 4, copied it to the iLamp,
decompressed, and mounted all six install disc images.
Jim
>
> (never did get much use out of CW 4, which I paid for. The Claris Works
> drawing and writing modules are nothing like as useful as MacWrite II
> and MacDraw II under System 6. It's one of the reasons I became very
> disillusioned with commercial software - a lot of it's not getting
> better, it's getting worse as it `develops')
I always liked 4. I seem to recall there was some sort of printing bug with
the spreadsheet (can't remember the details, missed the top line or
something) but generally I liked it.
Wasn't it the last version before it got an interface makeover? Never was
too keen on Appleworks' (v6 at least, and I _think_ v5) interface icons.
Woody
> On 2009-12-10, Rowland McDonnell
> <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >
> > (never did get much use out of CW 4, which I paid for. The Claris Works
> > drawing and writing modules are nothing like as useful as MacWrite II
> > and MacDraw II under System 6. It's one of the reasons I became very
> > disillusioned with commercial software - a lot of it's not getting
> > better, it's getting worse as it `develops')
>
> I always liked 4. I seem to recall there was some sort of printing bug with
> the spreadsheet (can't remember the details, missed the top line or
> something) but generally I liked it.
I hated every version of claris / apple works. Never got on with it at
all. I guess it was as I had a copy of word 5 with my first mac and it
did what i wanted.
--
Woody
Adrian Tuddenham
> On 2009-12-10, Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > (never did get much use out of CW 4, which I paid for. The Claris Works
> > drawing and writing modules are nothing like as useful as MacWrite II
> > and MacDraw II under System 6. It's one of the reasons I became very
> > disillusioned with commercial software - a lot of it's not getting
> > better, it's getting worse as it `develops')
>
> I always liked 4. I seem to recall there was some sort of printing bug with
> the spreadsheet (can't remember the details, missed the top line or
> something) but generally I liked it.
I've used the Spreadsheet a lot and haven't noticed any bugs. For
printers I use:
HP Laserjet 6 MP (ethernet > serial)
Canon CLBP460PS (ethernet)
Canon S520 (USB)
The ability of CW4 to embed Spreadsheets in WP Documents or in Drawings
is invaluable (also to embed Drawings in WPs as separate drawings or as
text characters)
>
> Wasn't it the last version before it got an interface makeover?
Yes. I foolishly 'upgraded' to CW/AW5 - and after 3 weeks switched back
to CW4 and have stayed there ever since.
Adrian Tuddenham
> Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@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. If it will, perhaps I shall get some some useful work
out of it after all.
Bruce Horrocks
Use Word, centre your paragraphs, type short lines at the top and longer
ones at the bottom, manually inserting carriage returns?
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)
Peter Ceresole
> >> However: can't the job be done using AppleWorks 6?
> >
> > Very likely, but will that run under OS 10.4?.
>
> Dim and distant memory here, but: yes, I think it will.
Yes it will, very well.
But if Pages will do it, that's the badger...
--
Peter
Jochem Huhmann
> Hylton Boothroyd wrote:
>> Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
>> easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
>> isosceles triangle?
>>
>> OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
>>
>> We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
>> It seems that MS Office has been useless for that sort of thing since
>> Office 98.
>
> Use Word, centre your paragraphs, type short lines at the top and longer
> ones at the bottom, manually inserting carriage returns?
But, but... that would be what *PC* users would do.
Jochem (who uses banner(6) for seasonal greatings, via email)
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hylton Boothroyd
> Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> > easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> > isosceles triangle?
>
> If `easy' includes a willingness to learn a macro instruction based
> non-wysiwyg approach:
>
> <http://www.tug.org/mactex/2009/>
1.3 GB!
> and then get the TeXBook by Knuth, which contains instructions on how to
> do that sort of thing (there are other approaches).
It seems to me that the solution to Exercise 14.18 (setting text in the
shape of an isosceles triangle) required Knuth to do most of the
calculations himself to get the layout numbers to feed into the
algorithm!
> TeX can do it.
Correct. And it would be beautiful given that the fine spacing would
eventually be looked after by TeX.
> ... you won't like the learning curve.
Correct. It must over 20 years since I did a page that along with the
text included an elegant, and entirely TeX/LaTeX generated, normal curve
with its axes. And it must be 10 years since I gave up the idea of
trying to maintain a personal-computer based TeX installation in
physical isolation from other users.
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).
--
Hylton
Jochem Huhmann
> 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.
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!
Jochem
Jon B
> On 2009-12-10, Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 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.
> >>
> >> However: can't the job be done using AppleWorks 6?
> >
> > Very likely, but will that run under OS 10.4?.
>
> Dim and distant memory here, but: yes, I think it will.
>
> Jim
I know I've got it running under 10.5, and fairly sure got some running
it under 10.6 too.
--
Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Adrian Tuddenham <adr...@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.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> > > easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> > > isosceles triangle?
> >
> > If `easy' includes a willingness to learn a macro instruction based
> > non-wysiwyg approach:
> >
> > <http://www.tug.org/mactex/2009/>
>
> 1.3 GB!
Yeah. There's a lorra lorra parts to a modern TeX distro. XeTeX, for
example - TeX that can do right to left and left to right typesetting,
*AND* use system founts without having to use the normal (La)TeX fount
selection mechanism - i.e., without having to `install the fount' with
TeX or LaTeX at all. Yeah, you just ask for it by name and it just
works. Honest. The fontspec package makes the process quite pleasant,
which is usual for LaTeX.
(for those who don't know: /setting up/ TeX or LaTeX to use particular
founts is an absolute bloody nightmare and a half. Almost no-one does
so themselves, but instead uses a shrink-wrapped distro for each fount
they wish to use - which distro contains only the TeX and LaTeX support
files required to use each fount family. Do not ask why or you will be
told, and it takes some telling.)
> > and then get the TeXBook by Knuth, which contains instructions on how to
> > do that sort of thing (there are other approaches).
>
> It seems to me that the solution to Exercise 14.18 (setting text in the
> shape of an isosceles triangle) required Knuth to do most of the
> calculations himself to get the layout numbers to feed into the
> algorithm!
He probably used Metafont as it happens. Knuth's like that.
But yes, that's the sort of thing you have to do with Plain TeX.
There's probably a LaTeX package for doing that sort of thing these
days, and there's a good chance it's part of the MacTeX distribution.
Asking for assistance is, I find, the only way to find out what you need
to use for a given job. news://comp.text.tex used to be the place to
go, but it's lost its usefulness in recent years.
> > TeX can do it.
>
> Correct. And it would be beautiful given that the fine spacing would
> eventually be looked after by TeX.
Well, looked after by TeX at the usual stage in processing.
> > ... you won't like the learning curve.
>
> Correct. It must over 20 years since I did a page that along with the
> text included an elegant, and entirely TeX/LaTeX generated, normal curve
> with its axes. And it must be 10 years since I gave up the idea of
> trying to maintain a personal-computer based TeX installation in
> physical isolation from other users.
A decade ago, it was easier in some respects to do that than it is now,
because a decade ago, there were friendly forums where one could get
help. 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. A bit of a bugger but that's the modern
world for you - exclusion and nastiness and bullying bitchiness are on
the increase everywhere I look.
But it's easier to get a full a TeX distro now than it was in the past,
because the available distributions are much more complete, but they do
come with much worse documentation and the on-line support available
isn't as useful as once was the case. Modern types on tech support
forums are more interested in hurling personal abuse than offering
technical assistance.
> 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).
I'm not the only one, so you're wrong.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> hylton.b...@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)
Steve Firth
> 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.
Hylton Boothroyd
> Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me to an application, preferably free, that makes it
> > easy to create plain text to take up all the space in an upright
> > isosceles triangle?
> >
> > OS 10.4.11, MS Office 2004.
> >
> > We had a rush of blood to the head and chose triangular Christmas cards!
>
> Pages. Not free, of course, but not expensive either.
Well, there's a free 30 day trial.
It took me a little while to get into the idiom of iWork09. But I'm
mightily impressed.
I have an isosceles triangle of the exact dimensions I want, starting
with one of the 15 built-in shapes that gives me a running report of
their when-printed-height-and-width in cm as I use a single vertex to
drive the resizing-cum-reshaping.
I have freely editable text, with spell checking, that continually
re-aligns itself within the triangle and does not do the
over-eager-puppy thing of "helpfully" expanding the triangle when full
-- just puts a discreet '+' on the base line.
I have all the fonts available, and in sizes specifiable to the nearest
0.1pt.
I can specify before/after spacing for whatever sub-set of paragraphs I
wish with all the flexibility of Word.
And it all remained fluently editable when I'd found the trick for
rotating the triangle.
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.
--
Hylton
Elliott Roper
Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@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
Hylton Boothroyd
> In article <1jap7i5.itdxs8v5m50kN%hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid>,
> Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@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
Jochem Huhmann
> 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.
Which of course can be done as well with a Pages template -- and you can
also use the Addressbook to drop in things. The main reason I'm still
using LaTeX for that is the fact that I'm too lazy to recreate my custom
layout in Pages.
>> 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.
Which still is a nightmare for things you want to use only once. And if
this involves fancy images and backgrounds and shapes you'd be silly to
use anything TeX-based for that.
> 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.
For that just use an empty WP template and start typing. No, where Pages
starts to suck is with complex word processing, because it's rather
limited here and can also get really slow (I haven't tried with recent
versions though, it certainly has gotten better and faster).
> 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?
When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very
much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing,
scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or
generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere
(databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages. As always
the trick is using the right tool for the job at hand. And neither Pages
nor LaTeX is the right tool for *everything*.
> Rowland.
> (who's got very little time for most modern software, which is mostly a
> lot less usable than what he's used to)
Things you're used to are always more usable, yes.
Woody
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes:
> > 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?
>
> When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very
> much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing,
> scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or
> generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere
> (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages
And very simple in Microsoft Word.
In theory should be easy in something like open office, but I have never
tried
--
Woody
Elliott Roper
One slight refinement. You can make your custom shape clickable
anywhere by giving it fill.
That's the Mac way. Make things discoverable without giving you a clue,
except it might work as you want in another application and why not try
it here?
I'm in two minds about whether that is a good thing. Once you discover
it, you don't forget it, but you can go your whole life thinking Word
is better. (well, OK *that* is a wild exaggeration)
Graham J
"Elliott Roper" <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:141220091432143320%nos...@yrl.co.uk...
> In article <1japtd5.rklqsz1gzeuomN%hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid>,
> Hylton Boothroyd <hylton.b...@null.c0m.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
> One slight refinement. You can make your custom shape clickable
> anywhere by giving it fill.
>
> That's the Mac way. Make things discoverable without giving you a clue,
> except it might work as you want in another application and why not try
> it here?
>
> I'm in two minds about whether that is a good thing. Once you discover
> it, you don't forget it, but you can go your whole life thinking Word
> is better. (well, OK *that* is a wild exaggeration)
From using other graphics programs the way I would select an irregular shape
is to click well outside it and drag the mouse so it creates a selection
rectangle completely encompassing the shape. This works with Visio, and
selects the items completely enclosed - omitting those which are only partly
enclosed. I find it quite handy ...
--
Graham J
Elliott Roper
<gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> From using other graphics programs the way I would select an irregular shape
> is to click well outside it and drag the mouse so it creates a selection
> rectangle completely encompassing the shape. This works with Visio, and
> selects the items completely enclosed - omitting those which are only partly
> enclosed. I find it quite handy ...
Yep. Good point. That is the Microsoft way. The Cocoa way is to select
all of any object encroached by your selection rectangle, however
partially it does so. Both are equally valid, although the latter
requires less mousing in the example we have been talking about. Either
way, it beats the pants off farting about with fills. Thanks!
D.M. Procida
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Pages has become (and bear in mind that I'm still using versopn 3, from
iWork 08) a stunningly-good word-processing and document/page layout
tool.
It works very well for longer, structured documents.
On its own, I think it's worth more than the price of iWork.
Daniele
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> Which of course can be done as well with a Pages template
But equally of course quicker with LaTeX, easier with LaTeX, more stable
with LaTeX, more reliable with LaTeX, and higher quality with LaTeX.
(providing that you've learnt how to do it in advance, that is, and
you've used a sensible approch - which I did not, so my letter class has
developed over the course of - oh god, the oldest fragments date back to
the 1980s...)
So yes, if you want to do that particular job the low quality slow hard
way, you use Pages.
How do you create a Pages template that lets you change the `name,
title, address, etc' formatting with a simple switch? Ditto page
layout? It's not possible, is it?
The problem I've got with these wysiwyg templates is that if the one
you've picked isn't right, you've got to start from scratch if you want
to use a different one. This is not an efficient way of working. With
LaTeX, I can send different options to the class/package files and just
try out a different `template' without having to re-work the entire
document by hand. Get the machine to do it - that's the way.
(There's me and my wife, and sometimes I'm Mr and sometimes not;
sometimes she uses Dr and sometimes not. Sometimes we'll include our
phone number, sometimes not. Ditto email addresses. Sometimes, my wife
wants to use her work contact details. All selectable with switches.
And then you can say `Hmm - page breaks are duff. Try lessvspace, being
a vertically compressed layout. And so it goes on. Not so easy to
fiddle like that using a wysiwyg setup)
> -- and you can
> also use the Addressbook to drop in things.
So what? Address Book.app assumes that you're using Mail.app for email
- completely useless. I've no idea what the point of it might be, but I
don't use it for anything and can't see any reason to start.
> The main reason I'm still
> using LaTeX for that is the fact that I'm too lazy to recreate my custom
> layout in Pages.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Which still is a nightmare for things you want to use only once.
Indeed. TeX has limited applicability - but where it *is* applicable,
it's brilliant.
> And if
> this involves fancy images and backgrounds and shapes you'd be silly to
> use anything TeX-based for that.
I'd say it's daft to use a TeX-based approach when you've got a one-off
layout or a visual layout job to do, but TeX is brilliant for including
backgrounds and fancy images, very much better than most wysiwyg
systems.
I know - I've been using a Mac since 1990 and LaTeX since about 1988/89.
Including graphics with LaTeX used to be a major pain.
Now, it's very very easy and works very very well - much better than MS
Word, for example.
> > 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.
>
> For that just use an empty WP template and start typing.
<puzzled> Well, I've never managed to work out how to use Pages
properly. You say `just use an empty WP template and start typing', but
that doesn't let me control the output I get so that I can produce
something of quality that matches what I can do with MacWrite v4.5 on my
Macintosh 512Ke. And Pages is a lot harder to use than MacWrite or
MacWrite II.
I know. I've tried.
(admittedly, I'm not sure I can connect my 512Ke to a decent-quality
printer and get useful output, at least with the kit I currently have in
the house. But I used to use the old 512Ke for WPing and it was very
nice indeed for simple jobs.)
And I'd forgotten. Pages thinks that centimeters is a unit for a rule.
No, that's 1/100th of a measuring instrument; centimetre is 1/100th of
the distance unit the `metre'. And anyway, where are millimetres as an
option? Centimetres are for dressmakers, as any number of old fashioned
engineers and technicians have said in my hearing.
> No, where Pages
> starts to suck is with complex word processing, because it's rather
> limited here and can also get really slow (I haven't tried with recent
> versions though, it certainly has gotten better and faster).
Slow? Irrelevant - Apple sorts out speed issues and in any case I grew
up with slow WPs, so no modern WP counts as `slow' to my mind, I
wouldn't have thought. NOt that I use 'em to speak of.
I recall it taking 40 minutes to typeset my MSc dissertation on a Mac
Classic (LaTeX, BibTeX, LaTeX, LaTeX - Mac Classics aren't /that/ slow).
I've got a 3.06GHz Core2Duo iMac now. LaTeX's pretty damned quick, but
still not instantaneous - I'm used to waiting a bit.
> > 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?
>
> When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very
> much.
<puzzled> I don't understand what you mean.
I'd rather *see* the instructions to the machine than hope that the mess
of formatting commands that I've executed ends up adding up to something
sensible.
Hard to get it right, doing complex things with a wysiwyg rig, for that
reason, as I've found myself.
I've had to cut-paste to a plain text editor, then copy-paste back (to
remove all formatting) when trying to do complex things with a wysiwyg
rig in the past, all because it's ended up with a mess of invisible
overlapping confusing formatting commands which is kindly kept hidden
from the user, so the user couldn't make the bloody machinery work
right.
>Editing complex tables is such a case.
Complex tables are *MUCH* easier to create and edit using LaTeX than
anything else I've ever met.
And I do mean not merely much, but *MUCH*.
I can produce highest possible quality tables using LaTeX quicker than
you can produce any sort of version of the same table in any wysiwyg
application. I guarantee that - and I'll put gold plating on that
guarantee if you're using MS Word.
> Dropping in, placing,
> scaling and rotating images is another.
LaTeX makes that much easier than anything I've ever met on the wysiwyg
side.
What else other than LaTeX lets you place items with a precision and
accuracy of 5.3629 microns?
(That's 1/65536 of 1 TeX point, being 1/72.27", being /very/ close to
the official standard printers' point definition)
Okay, if you want to flow text around an image and don't mind if
positioning isn't exactly right, wysiwyg is the best bet. Or if you're
doing visual layout of any sort. Magazine pages, for example - don't
use LaTeX, do what I did: send 'em to the pre-press house and have a
drone slam it into Quark Xpress then send back a proof copy.
That works very well in some cases - it's reliant on the pre-press house
being competent. Not all of them are.
> But then generating tables (or
> generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere
> (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages.
I've always found that to be very hard to do using LaTeX.
You say you can do so easily - what method do you use? Any pointer
would be welcome.
> As always
> the trick is using the right tool for the job at hand. And neither Pages
> nor LaTeX is the right tool for *everything*.
I see no sign of anyone suggesting anything else.
> > Rowland.
> > (who's got very little time for most modern software, which is mostly a
> > lot less usable than what he's used to)
>
> Things you're used to are always more usable, yes.
You have missed the point.
When I first started to learn how to use Macs, decent software
documentation existed. I used it, so I could learn to use the software.
Modern software is generally not documented at all in a fashion that I
would call `documentation', therefore it is impossible for me to learn
how to use. For example, I get new OS versions simply to permit me to
use a new computer - I cannot learn how to use new OS-supplied UI
features on the whole, since there is no manual and I find it impossible
to learn from the `Mac Help' presentation Apple uses for OS X user
documentation.
(the style and method of presentation chosen by Apple ensures that
whatever I read in Apple-sourced Mac Help text is impossible to
remember)
I must keep access to my older software because I cannot learn how to
use the replacement software due to the absence of competent
documentation in most cases.
The issue here is not that I just want to use what I already know about,
but that it has become impossible for me to learn about most new
software due to the fact that proper manuals are simply no longer
available in the general case.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes:
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very
> > much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing,
> > scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or
> > generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere
> > (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages
>
> And very simple in Microsoft Word.
The fact that MS Word is so very /VERY/ bad at tables compared to LaTeX
is one reason why my wife does as much in LaTeX as she possibly can.
MS Word is also notably bloody awful at including graphics.
Neither my wife nor I can produce a table in MS Word that matches what
we want - and we've both sat down with the docs. I once spent an entire
day on the job before realizing that I wasn't getting anywhere and
giving up.
[snip]
Rowland.
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > > real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes:
> >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very
> > > much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing,
> > > scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or
> > > generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere
> > > (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages
> >
> > And very simple in Microsoft Word.
>
> The fact that MS Word is so very /VERY/ bad at tables compared to LaTeX
> is one reason why my wife does as much in LaTeX as she possibly can.
I have done a document with 12 tables on word 2007 tonight without
issues.
But this was refering to generating tables from databases or other data,
which is very easy to do in a microsoft word document (with or without
microsoft word).
> MS Word is also notably bloody awful at including graphics.
No disagreement with that one, it is hard to get it to do anything
useful with graphics. I am sure pages is better at that, but sadly any
documents I have to do have to be microsoft word .doc 1997-2003 format.
If I was doing them for my own benefit, I would probably use pages, as
it would do what I wanted. Unless it was just layout based, then I have
indesign CS3.
--
Woody
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) writes:
> > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > When my content starts to vanish beneath tons of markup I do care very
> > > > much. Editing complex tables is such a case. Dropping in, placing,
> > > > scaling and rotating images is another. But then generating tables (or
> > > > generally parts of documents) from data pulled from elsewhere
> > > > (databases, files) is a snap with LaTeX and not so with Pages
> > >
> > > And very simple in Microsoft Word.
> >
> > The fact that MS Word is so very /VERY/ bad at tables compared to LaTeX
> > is one reason why my wife does as much in LaTeX as she possibly can.
>
> I have done a document with 12 tables on word 2007 tonight without
> issues.
I expect the formatting is bloody awful. I've never seen a decent table
done in MS Word - never. Not once.
> But this was refering to generating tables from databases or other data,
> which is very easy to do in a microsoft word document (with or without
> microsoft word).
So you say. How? I can't do it.
> > MS Word is also notably bloody awful at including graphics.
>
> No disagreement with that one, it is hard to get it to do anything
> useful with graphics. I am sure pages is better at that, but sadly any
> documents I have to do have to be microsoft word .doc 1997-2003 format.
Hmm! Well, working to one version of an MS Word standard has benefits.
My wife has to supply MS Word documents for collaboration reasons, but
she often runs into version problems causing various people to be unable
to use MS Word documents from one person with their version of MS Word.
One advantage of LaTeX is that that sort of problem is - umm,
different... The basic file format has only changed once, and there is
a backwards compatibility mode that works with all my old format
documents (the bit that doesn't work from old to new is old-style fount
definition commands, but not many people used them in the old days).
Version problems can exist, sort of - but if so, all you need to do is
download the latest version of whichever freely downloadable package
you're missing.
> If I was doing them for my own benefit, I would probably use pages, as
> it would do what I wanted. Unless it was just layout based, then I have
> indesign CS3.
Uhuh.
Rowland McDonnell
> Bruce Horrocks <07....@scorecrow.com> writes:
[snip]
> > Use Word, centre your paragraphs, type short lines at the top and longer
> > ones at the bottom, manually inserting carriage returns?
>
> But, but... that would be what *PC* users would do.
It's also the typewriter solution, and so allowed, surely?