[OS X TeX] Need help collaborating with Windows user

[John B. Thoo]

First, thank you again to everyone who responded.  I'm sorry for not  
acknowledging sooner.

On Fri, 12 Mar John Burt wrote:

> I think the problem is that your other user does not have all the  
> packages you use installed.
>
> [...]
>
> For the citations, you may need the .sty file that goes with that  
> citation (e.g. chicago.sty, mla.sty, or some such), to provide some  
> of the special reference commands called for by that style. LaTeX  
> will always complain about the citations the first time through, but  
> once you have run BibTex and run LaTeX again twice, it should stop  
> complaining.

I'll pass that on.  Thanks.


On Fri, 12 Mar Peter Dyballa wrote:

>> If not "latex" and DVI (which are with what I'm comfortable), then
>> what?  All my figures have been converted to EPS and I use graphicx
>> to include them. (I also use vi to edit my files.  I suppose that I
>> am in the Dark Ages still.)  Any direction would be appreciated.
>> I'm willing to modernize, but I don't know how.  Thanks.
>
> Direct PDF output is now state of the "black art" (German saying).
> Packages like epstopdf allow inclusion of EPS graphics files which are
> actually converted to PDF with Ghostscript. So Ghostscript needs to be
> installed. The direct convertor is pdflatex. See: texdoc pdftex.

Does this mean using "pdflatex", e.g.?  I presume that would output a  
PDF file; what do I use for a viewer (on X-Windows, e.g., but not  
necessarily) while working?  I tend to latex and then view after every  
few paragraphs---sometimes after one or two lines---and, as I  
mentioned, I currently use in X-Windows vi to edit my files, then  
"latex", and then view the output using xdvi.


>> - And as far as inserting an input encoding statement, I have
>> absolutely no idea what you mean.
>>
>
>
> 	\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
>
> (\usepackage[full]{textcomp} can be used additionally to type
> interesting characters). More information from the command line via:
>
> 	texdoc inputenc
>
> Usually another line is also included:
>
> 	\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
>
> Again, texdoc will provide more information. The chosen T1 font
> encoding is useful for 8-bit scripts, English can exist with OT1 –
> which is the default.

I looked at "texdoc inputenc", but it's a bit above me.  What do using  
these two packages actually do for the user?  Why is using them better  
than not?


Fri, 12 Mar David Watson wrote:

> b) keep your .eps files, and use the epstopdf package - there have  
> been a few posts related to using eps files in this way within the  
> last to weeks on this very list.
>
> This will allow you to keep your eps files with the benefit of  
> automatic conversion to pdf files for inclusion in your document.

OK, I'll followup on that.  Thanks.


On Sat, 13 Mar Gerrit Glabbart wrote:

> their website lists the current version as MikTeX 2.8, with no  
> automatic upgrade
> path.

I'll ask Amy to upgrade from 2.7.  Thanks.


On Fri, 12 Mar Michael Sharpe wrote:

> I tried compiling your project using MikTeX2.8 on an XP machine  
> using WinEdt as a front end. I did have to add the hieroglf font map  
> to MikTeX using the method spelled out in
>
> http://docs.miktex.org/manual/advanced.html
>
> The processing by MikTeX appeared then to be identical to the Mac  
> version. (Lots of warnings of overfull and underful boxes but no  
> errors.) As you have embedded pstricks in your tex file, latex+dvips  
> is the normal processing mode, but it makes for slow rendering.

That's encouraging.  I will mention that to her.  Thanks.


> It would be useful to send Amy a much smaller document with, say,  
> one eps graphic inclusion and one  pspicture to check that she has  
> an installation that is basically correct. Since pstricks has had a  
> number of changes in the last couple of years, it would be wise for  
> her to update to the latest version of MikTeX.

That's a good idea.


On Sat, 13 Mar Sr Sur wrote:

> In Other hand If you use DVI script to compile (becouse of .eps  
> files) the
> typesetting is absolutely slower than if you use Pdflatex script  
> (according
> to the indications to do right). The comments about this problem  
> were about
> me (At least I had these kind of problems in this list). I changed  
> all my
> eps Figures to .pdf and works Good and Faster... And if you have a G4
> processor perhaps is cool to use the faster way...;).

Thank you.  Many, like you, suggest not dvi.  I will have to think  
seriously about pdflatex.  I'm still wondering what I would use for a  
viewer.


On Sat, 13 Mar Peter Dyballa wrote:

> Am 13.03.2010 um 02:52 schrieb Michael Sharpe:
>
>> As you have embedded pstricks in your tex file, latex+dvips is the
>> normal processing mode, but it makes for slow rendering.
>
> Many PSTricks inclusions work with pdfTeX when the package pdfTricks
> is used:
>
> %%% preamble
>
> [snip, snip]
>
> %%% the right stuff
> \begin{document}
>
> \ifpdf
>   \begin{pdfdisplay}
>
> [snip, snip]
>
> \else
>   \begin{pspicture}(4,3)
>
> [snip, snip]

Wow!  Thanks for the instructions and examples.  Does this mean I need  
to have two sets of instructions for all my pspictures?


> When working with PSTricks, with latex+dvips or with pdflatex, you
> have to use the option -shell-escape.

So, e.g.,

   pdflatex -shell-escape foo.tex

?

On Sat, 13 Mar Michael Sharpe wrote:

> There are a couple of issues using pdftricks. First, you need to  
> modify the code for every pspicture, as you indicated above. Second,  
> the trimming relies on ps2eps, which has bugs when used in the  
> manner selected by pdftricks. Though this can be remedied by adding  
> some options to the call to ps2eps, I think the package auto-pst-pdf  
> is much easier to use. There's a good discussion of the options at
>
> http://tug.org/PSTricks/main.cgi?file=pdf/pdfoutput

Another wow!  I'll have to sift through this.  But would this  
eliminate the need for having two sets of instructions for all  
pspictures (\ifpdf ... \else ...)?


I apologize for my long post.  Thanks again, everyone, for your  
suggestions.  Lots for me to chew (and chew, and chew) on.  And I  
thought I was getting along just fine using latex.  Little did I know  
how little I knew!

---John.

(I receive the digest version of this list.)