Top Front End Editors for LaTeX on Windows | User Recommendations"

  • Context: LaTeX 
  • Thread starter Thread starter James R
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Latex
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around recommendations for LaTeX editors and front ends specifically for Windows users. Participants share their preferences, experiences, and features they find beneficial in various LaTeX editing environments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants recommend TeXnicCenter as a user-friendly IDE for LaTeX on Windows, highlighting its ease of document compilation and built-in documentation.
  • Others express satisfaction with XEmacs and its variants, noting their preference for generating PDF output directly using pdflatex.
  • Warren suggests MathType for entering mathematical expressions, arguing it is faster and less error-prone than manual LaTeX coding.
  • Some participants share their experiences with other editors like WinEdt and Scientific WorkPlace, discussing features that aid in visualizing and manipulating mathematical expressions.
  • There is a discussion about the balance between using dedicated math software versus LaTeX for writing papers, with differing opinions on which method is less disruptive to the writing process.
  • George describes how Scientific WorkPlace provides a visual representation of mathematics, which he finds helpful for both writing and developing mathematical ideas.
  • One participant questions the need for Scientific WorkPlace, suggesting alternatives like Maple for similar functionalities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of preferences for LaTeX editors, with no clear consensus on the best option. Disagreements arise particularly around the use of MathType versus direct LaTeX coding, with some favoring the former for its efficiency and others advocating for the latter for its integration within the writing process.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the necessity of installing MikTeX for certain environments to function properly. There are also references to personal experiences that highlight the subjective nature of preferences in LaTeX editors.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for Windows users looking for LaTeX editing solutions, as well as those interested in the pros and cons of various LaTeX front ends and their features.

James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
599
Reaction score
15
As the title says...

For those of you who use LaTeX, especially on Windows, which editor/front end do you use? Or, if you know of several, which one do you consider to be best?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TeXnic center is neat, on windows. I'm content with xemacs and xdvi on a *nix environment.
 
If you're concerned about entering math into your LaTeX document, I strongly recommend MathType.

- Warren
 
Typically, I use a port of XEmacs for Win32 whenever I use Windows, or on UNIX/BSD/Linux, I either use some sort of 'vi' (vi or nvi, preferred, but in dire circumstances, vim).

I usually don't bother to generate .dvi output. I just use 'pdflatex' to generate a .pdf (as I probably would've used dvi2ps and ps2pdf, anyways), so when possible I just use 'acroread' or 'xpdf', which uses Ghostscript as a back-end.
 
emacs is my favorite, almost set up like here http://www.math.aau.dk/~dethlef/Tips/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chroot said:
If you're concerned about entering math into your LaTeX document, I strongly recommend MathType.

- Warren

bleh... just get a reference and use the inline math environment.. ti takes a week to get use to and then your on your way.
 
I agree that Texnicenter is the best IDE for Latex on windows... it is easy to compile the documents, highlights the keywords, etc. and all the documentation that you would search for on the web is already there (literally, the exact same documents)

remember though to install MikTeX is you have not already... none of these environments will work without that installed :-)
 
ComputerGeek,

I know LaTeX. I built the LaTeX system into this forum :rolleyes: I can still enter equations in MathType an order of magnitude faster, and with less error, than typing the LaTeX commands manually. When writing complex equations manually, I often find myself fighting brace-balancing problems, and I simply have better things to do.

- Warren
 
chroot said:
ComputerGeek,

I know LaTeX. I built the LaTeX system into this forum :rolleyes: I can still enter equations in MathType an order of magnitude faster, and with less error, than typing the LaTeX commands manually. When writing complex equations manually, I often find myself fighting brace-balancing problems, and I simply have better things to do.

- Warren
I did not mean to insinuate that you were clueless, just that when writing a paper, using the math environment is less disruptive to the writing process than having to open up a separate program to create a mathematical formula.

Different strokes I guess.
 
  • #10
ComputerGeek said:
I did not mean to insinuate that you were clueless, just that when writing a paper, using the math environment is less disruptive to the writing process than having to open up a separate program to create a mathematical formula.
alt-tab, type, copy, alt-tab, paste. I don't find it disruptive. I do, however, find spending three minutes trying to figure out which brace I forgot to close, or looking up (again) how to put slashes through symbols, rather disruptive.

Different strokes I guess.
I guess. You're the one who had to comment on what was only a recommendation of a product I enjoy using, rather than just letting me continue to enjoy using it.

- Warren
 
  • #11
chroot said:
alt-tab, type, copy, alt-tab, paste. I don't find it disruptive. I do, however, find spending three minutes trying to figure out which brace I forgot to close, or looking up (again) how to put slashes through symbols, rather disruptive.
- Warren

I don't seem to have that problem. Sorry if I struck a nerve.
 
  • #12
I have been using WinEdt, which works pretty well, but looking at the TeXNicCenter home page, it looks like it has some good features. I'll give it a try.

Thanks for the help.
 
  • #13
I use Scientific WorkPlace, which has a fairly hefty price-tag.

chroot said:
I do, however, find spending three minutes trying to figure out which brace I forgot to close, or looking up (again) how to put slashes through symbols, rather disruptive.

I couldn't agree more!

For me there is also another issue. When I write non-technical prose that contains no mathematics, I compose at the keyboard without putting pen to paper. As much as possible, I like to do the same when I write tecnhnical stuff that contains lots of mathematics.

Thisn is impossible when using straight LateX. When I see a complicated mathematical expression in LaTex, I can't, in my mind, visualize the expression both as a whole and as parts, which I need to be able to do in order to manipulate and massage parts as the expression in my head.

Scientific Workplace provides just the type of environment I need - nice visual representation of the mathematics, plotting facilities, and a built-in algebraic system (in my old version, an extensive subset of Maple) that accepts, without ever moving out of the document window, the visual mathematics as input (as opposed to ASCII).

I use this system both not only to wite the final product, but also as an electronic scratchpad to develop the mathematics on the fly.

I have attached a screenshot of work that I posted on the Special & General Relativity forum. This is not after compiling - this is how it appeared as I inputted it in. Of course, compilation is necessary to produce LaTeX output.

Regards,
George
 

Attachments

  • screen.gif
    screen.gif
    45.1 KB · Views: 567
  • #14
Cripes... why not just use maple then?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K