cygwin/tetex or miktex?

cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[rb]

Is one of these two preferable when running ConTeXt on windows?

Thank you
-- 

Re: cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hello rb,

> Is one of these two preferable when running ConTeXt on windows?

please don't use the subject alone, it is confusing.

You can also use fptex (or texlive). I'd prefer fptex over miktex over
tetex/cygwin. But I am not the person to ask, since I haven't seen a
windows system in a while. Just my impression from reading some
mailing lists and news groups. You might think of posting your
experience to this list.

Patrick

-- 
ConTeXt wiki: http://contextgarden.net

Re: Re: cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

> You can also use fptex (or texlive). I'd prefer fptex over miktex over
> tetex/cygwin. But I am not the person to ask, since I haven't seen a
> windows system in a while.

But you're right. I use TeXlive with ConTeXt on WinXP at work (and on 
MacOS X at home).


Grüßlis vom Hraban!
---
http://www.fiee.net/texnique/

Re: cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[Mari Voipio]

On 8 Oct 2004, rb wrote:
> Is one of these two preferable when running ConTeXt on windows?

If you ask me (Windows NT/2000/XP), none of them... When I started to
learn ConTeXt, I installed miktex, but I didn't like it. Then I tried
TeXLive model 2002 and while it had couple of font installation problems,
once I got it to work, it worked fine.

Since this spring I'm using TeXLive 2003 and once I got to as far as
burning the CD (downloading problems + stupid Windows XP doesn't have
built-in tools for opening .bz2 archives or burning .iso CD:s!) and found
the magic line to be added to my old ConTeXt docs to make fonts work (the
one about \usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]), I haven't had any
problems whatsoever (or, let's say: all problems have been caused by my
code, haven't found bugs in the TeXLive installation).

I use NT Emacs+context.el as my editor (XEmacs would come on the TeXLive
CD, but I didn't want to switch) as I'm used to GNU Emacs from before.
However, even WordPad or Notepad will do, they just don't have the
highlighting etc.
SciTe is an editor for Windows, but even with Pragma's manual (at
<http://www.pragma-ade.com/show-man.pdf>, fifth from top, fifth from
left), installation was kind of tricky, not as easy as we Windows users
are used to. On the other hand, once SciTe is installed and some commands
(like 'what "build" means') have been explained to the clueless
Windows+Word user, they seem to find Scite easy to master (ok, test group
is really small, but you get the idea - it is a challenge to introduce
something like ConTeXt into a standard office environment).
There are other suitable editors out there, too, but I haven't tested
them.

However, if you are *only* using ConTeXt, I'd recommend downloading
http://www.pragma-ade.com/context/install/mswintex.zip.bz2 (minimal
CONTEXT distribution (windows)) from Pragma's website. Or, if you want
something portable, grab
<http://www.pragma-ade.com/context/install/tex.iso.bz2> (stand-alone
CONTEXT environment (iso image)), unzip, burn onto cd, insert cd into any
Windows PC and use!
(Disclaimer: I haven't tested the minimal version yet, will need to hog
somebody elses NT for test purposes; my stand-alone version is from August
and works fine with a multiple file environment. That ConTeXt CD includes
a pre-configured editor, I don't know about the current stand-alone
version)

If your Windows doesn't recognize the bz2 archives, for example the free
unzipper PowerArchiver will open it (there's also a handy command line
bz2-unzipper, google for it, I don't remember the name); I think cygwin
had it... And all reasonable CD burning programs (like Nero) burn .iso
images, it's just XP's built-in burner that's too dumb for it (been there,
tried that, cursed it....).


Hmm... Maybe I should *finally* get around to continuing on my
context4windows.html.... (and probably context4windowsusers.html as
well and windowseditors4context.html and....)


Greetings from sub-zero temperatures,
				Mari
				windows user, windows teacher
				(but unix mail!)

Re: cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[Hans Hagen]

rb wrote:

> Is one of these two preferable when running ConTeXt on windows?

either use fptex (tex live) or use miktex; using tetex under cygwin to 
me sounds like a bad idea; in that case directly running linux makes 
more sense

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hello Mari,

[...]

> Hmm... Maybe I should *finally* get around to continuing on my
> context4windows.html.... (and probably context4windowsusers.html as
> well and windowseditors4context.html and....)

And/Or putting these on the wiki? Do you have any drafts ready?

> Greetings from sub-zero temperatures,

:-)

Patrick

-- 
ConTeXt wiki: http://contextgarden.net

Re: Re: cygwin/tetex or miktex?

[rb]

"Patrick Gundlach" <patrick@gundla.ch> writes:

> Hello rb,
>
>> Is one of these two preferable when running ConTeXt on windows?
>
> please don't use the subject alone, it is confusing.

Hello Patrick,

Good point, thanks for the reminder and thanks for the suggestions.

> You can also use fptex (or texlive). I'd prefer fptex over miktex over
> tetex/cygwin. But I am not the person to ask, since I haven't seen a
> windows system in a while. Just my impression from reading some
> mailing lists and news groups. You might think of posting your
> experience to this list.

If I have any experiences worth sharing, I shall certainly do so.

Thank-you
--