Re: Windows xp user wants to begin with context

[Mari Voipio <mari.voipio@iki.fi>]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Wilfried Van Hirtum wrote:
> But can anybody out there please tell me how i can start from the very
> beginning. I would appreciate your advise very much.

There are many versions of the same theme, but some ways do suit a Windows
user quite well. I actually wouldn't know how to install ConTeXt in a
linux or unix (should maybe try one day...), but I've found my way with
Windows, like this:

System: TeXLive.
I download the ISO image, burn it on a CD (XP's native software doesn't
read ISO's, but for example Nero does) and use the one and same CD to
install all the computers I use (1 x XP, 2 x W2k, 2 x NT).  The necessary
piece of information here seems to be that only the full installation of
TeXLive works out-of-the-box - standard seems to forget some parts that
are very necessary to the Windows user who hasn't used any programs like
this before (been there, done that, lost half a day on it).

Editor: NTEmacs, comes in the TeXLive full installation. To make it work I
have to add and compile context.el and fiddle a bit with the settings. Now
I have a fully configured .emacs settings file which I just copy for each
computer. If you are truly interested in using NTEmacs for ConTeXt work
(and only that), I can set up detailed instructions with appropriate links
and instructions and a ready-to-use .emacs (complete with printer
settings).
With the context.el (context mode) NTEmacs among others shows the ConTeXt
codes in colours and uses the i-spell spell checker without getting stuck
in the codes (and i-spell comes even i Finnish!). You'll get much of the
same functionality with WinEdt, I just didn't like it (and couldn't figure
out how to make a button to direct-compile my file) and I knew the Emacs
keyboard commands from before.

Setup: Windows (whichever of them) automatically opens .tex files into
NTEmacs. I edit them and can compile with a menu command or keyboard
shortcut (prefer the latter, hate mousework). Because I set my system that
way, the file is compiled straight into .pdf and I can use another command
to open the file in Acrobat reader to view it (assuming the compilation
worked out).


Advantages and disadvantages compared with Word (or similar):
+ files with umpteen large figures never ever crash and
  never get corrupted; the compilation may crash, but the file
  always survives - and takes a lot less space.
+ accepts pdf pictures (although this far I've always
  cropped them in full Acrobat; there must be an easier way),
  which is good when original is not in an easy vector format;
  jpg works perfectly, too.
+ table of contents, indices, references are so much easier
  to make and have a much higher success rate; and finding the
  ones that don't work is easy
-> a manual I produced with ConText has a lot higher level
   of consistency than the earlier ones that were written
   with Word (and without using some of its existing
   reference mechanism)
+ our print shop loves the pdf files produced by the very
  default ConTeXt pdf compiling system
- tables are a big pain
- fonts used to be a big hassle, I think the last version of
  ConText makes them only a medium hassle
- once in a while I go crazy because I know in Windows/Word
  language what I want, but cannot translate it into ConTeXt.
  I'm slowly learning to accept that I may never master
  ConTeXt the way I used to master Word (I'm a heavy-user);
  but the result will still be a lot better
- there's some command line work involved; I've managed work
  around some of it by learning to make .bat files, but
  there's more to be done.

What's different:
* if you are used to Word, the way real typesetting systems
  move floats (like pictures and floating tables) around
  feels a bit weird in the beginning (and trying to explain
  the behaviour to your boss may be "interesting"...)
* the more you've used styles (defined headings etc) in Windows text
  processing, the easier ConTeXt will be for you; people who are used to
  formatting everything by hand (i.e. don't do structural
  thinking) will find this kind of typesetting very difficult
  to understand
* there's a ton of new and different options; I just haven't
  gotten very far yet. One day I will try to understand the
  module system and make it work for me, to compile printable
  and interactive documents from the same sources.


One of my projects for a longish time has been to write detailed beginner
instructions for ConTeXt in the Windows way (I used to teach beginner to
intermediate Windows, I still speak the language, and Word too). If I
manage to excavate my desk (probably at work) deep enough to find the new
TeXLive CD I burned before Christmas, the pages should be up by
mid-February.

Things have changed during the 18 months since I first took up my fight
with ConTeXt, so I need to check all the notes I've made before releasing
anything. And I'll probably start with Windows NT, but in my experience
the Windows version doesn't make any difference as long as it's Win95 or
newer and the user-rights are sufficient.


Greetings from the cold north (-15 centigrades!),

		Mari from Finland
		<mari.voipio@iki.fi>