From: Jeff B. <jb...@co...> - 2014-07-31 02:59:55
|
We are using a rather old version of MikTeX (2.7) and some old documents use \documentstyle instead of \documentclass! We are just finishing the build of 2 Win 7 Pro 64bit machines and will, of course, install MikTeX latest. Will the LaTeX in that version still compile those old documents or will we need to modify them all by hand? Any information will be much appreciated. Jeff Barnett |
From: David A. <dra...@me...> - 2014-07-31 04:38:04
|
Jeff Barnett wrote: > We are using a rather old version of MikTeX (2.7) and some old documents > use \documentstyle instead of \documentclass! Very old documents - that changed when LaTeX 2e was released in 1994! (MiKTeX 2.7 is from 2007) > We are just finishing the > build of 2 Win 7 Pro 64bit machines and will, of course, install MikTeX > latest. Will the LaTeX in that version still compile those old documents > or will we need to modify them all by hand? Any information will be much > appreciated. You should be fine - it's still LaTeX 2e in both. David |
From: Jeff B. <jb...@co...> - 2014-07-31 06:03:03
|
David Allsopp wrote, On 7/30/2014 10:37 PM: > Jeff Barnett wrote: >> We are using a rather old version of MikTeX (2.7) and some old documents >> use \documentstyle instead of \documentclass! > Very old documents - that changed when LaTeX 2e was released in 1994! (MiKTeX 2.7 is from 2007) > >> We are just finishing the >> build of 2 Win 7 Pro 64bit machines and will, of course, install MikTeX >> latest. Will the LaTeX in that version still compile those old documents >> or will we need to modify them all by hand? Any information will be much >> appreciated. > You should be fine - it's still LaTeX 2e in both. > That's reassuring. Editing documents that you can hardly remember is no fun. Thanks for the information. Jeff Barnett |
From: Ulrike F. <li...@ni...> - 2014-07-31 07:25:35
|
Am Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:59:49 -0600 schrieb Jeff Barnett: > We are using a rather old version of MikTeX (2.7) and some old documents > use \documentstyle instead of \documentclass! We are just finishing the > build of 2 Win 7 Pro 64bit machines and will, of course, install MikTeX > latest. Will the LaTeX in that version still compile those old documents > or will we need to modify them all by hand? Any information will be much > appreciated. It depends on the content of the documents. The latex kernel hasn't changed much, but packages evolves. -- Ulrike Fischer http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/ |
From: Jeff B. <jb...@co...> - 2014-07-31 17:41:29
|
Ulrike Fischer wrote, On 7/31/2014 1:25 AM: > Am Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:59:49 -0600 schrieb Jeff Barnett: > >> We are using a rather old version of MikTeX (2.7) and some old documents >> use \documentstyle instead of \documentclass! We are just finishing the >> build of 2 Win 7 Pro 64bit machines and will, of course, install MikTeX >> latest. Will the LaTeX in that version still compile those old documents >> or will we need to modify them all by hand? Any information will be much >> appreciated. > It depends on the content of the documents. The latex kernel hasn't > changed much, but packages evolves. I think they are all "article". I installed late last night on one of the two machines but haven't had the time (or energy) to test anything yet. Jeff Barnett |
From: Vladimir Y. <yum...@ma...> - 2014-07-31 19:41:50
|
Hi. Jeff, I am still using 2.1 and am quite satisfied with it. Some years ago I decided to try 2.7 and found out that Metafont became huge and slow. Similar things usually occur with other products. That is why I am suspicious regarding any upgrade proposals. With 2.1 I demonstrated even chess and music to my students. What else would one need? Regards Vladimir Среда, 30 июля 2014, 20:59 -06:00 от Jeff Barnett <jb...@co...>: > We are using a rather old version of MikTeX (2.7) and some old documents > use \documentstyle instead of \documentclass! We are just finishing the > build of 2 Win 7 Pro 64bit machines and will, of course, install MikTeX > latest. Will the LaTeX in that version still compile those old documents > or will we need to modify them all by hand? Any information will be much > appreciated. > > Jeff Barnett > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Infragistics Professional > Build stunning WinForms apps today! > Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. > Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeX-Users mailing list > MiK...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktex-users -- Vladimir Yumashev |
From: Ulrike F. <li...@ni...> - 2014-08-01 15:48:09
|
Am Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:39:17 +0400 schrieb Vladimir Yumashev: > I am still using 2.1 and am quite satisfied with it. > Some years ago I decided to try 2.7 and found out > that Metafont became huge and slow. Similar things > usually occur with other products. That is why I am > suspicious regarding any upgrade proposals. > With 2.1 I demonstrated even chess and music > to my students. What else would one need? biblatex + biber, tikz, lualatex, xelatex, (pdf)etex (is perhaps there), beamer, siunitx, ... If I think longer I will find a lot of new things that I would miss horribly. -- Ulrike Fischer http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/ |
From: David A. <dra...@me...> - 2014-08-01 16:13:27
|
Ulrike Fischer wrote: > Am Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:39:17 +0400 schrieb Vladimir Yumashev: > > > I am still using 2.1 and am quite satisfied with it. > > Some years ago I decided to try 2.7 and found out that Metafont became > > huge and slow. Similar things usually occur with other products. That > > is why I am suspicious regarding any upgrade proposals. > > With 2.1 I demonstrated even chess and music to my students. What > > else would one need? > > biblatex + biber, tikz, lualatex, xelatex, (pdf)etex (is perhaps there), > beamer, siunitx, ... If I think longer I will find a lot of new things > that I would miss horribly. And that's even before noting that MiKTeX 2.1 doesn't work (at least properly) on any supported version of Windows! |
From: Vladimir Y. <yum...@ma...> - 2014-08-01 17:57:48
|
Neither am I inclined to upgrade to new "supported" Windows, unless they explain clearly what they are spending huge computer resources for. I understand well what I spend gigabytes of core and disk memory for, so I expect the developers to explain their reasons for doing that (except the desire to make me visit a computer shop again and again). Kind regards Пятница, 1 августа 2014, 16:13 UTC от David Allsopp <dra...@me...>: > Ulrike Fischer wrote: > > Am Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:39:17 +0400 schrieb Vladimir Yumashev: > > > > > I am still using 2.1 and am quite satisfied with it. > > > Some years ago I decided to try 2.7 and found out that Metafont became > > > huge and slow. Similar things usually occur with other products. That > > > is why I am suspicious regarding any upgrade proposals. > > > With 2.1 I demonstrated even chess and music to my students. What > > > else would one need? > > > > biblatex + biber, tikz, lualatex, xelatex, (pdf)etex (is perhaps there), > > beamer, siunitx, ... If I think longer I will find a lot of new things > > that I would miss horribly. > > And that's even before noting that MiKTeX 2.1 doesn't work (at least properly) > on any supported version of Windows! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeX-Users mailing list > MiK...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktex-users -- Vladimir Yumashev |