Comment by jimmyvalmer
4 years ago
Okay, you win. Also: our individual opinions become vanishingly insignificant relative to the aggregate opinion of the market, one that continues to pay for MS Equation Editor.
4 years ago
Okay, you win. Also: our individual opinions become vanishingly insignificant relative to the aggregate opinion of the market, one that continues to pay for MS Equation Editor.
Also: our individual opinions become vanishingly insignificant relative to the aggregate opinion of the market, one that continues to pay for MS Equation Editor.
Actually they don't.
People preferred paying for products like https://www.dessci.com/en/products/mathtype/ which allowed people to type TeX into Microsoft documents than they did Equation Editor. Therefore Microsoft gave up on Equation Editor. They then created an XML-based markup language for math, and MathBuilder around that. Which they then put a TeX translation layer into so that you can type simple TeX in Word, Outlook, and so on, then get a math equation out.
Sadly for Microsoft, they didn't actually remove Equation Editor. I say sadly because they eventually had to. Per https://securityboulevard.com/2018/01/microsoft-kills-old-of... it was found to have a serious security hole, and removing it was easier than fixing it.
Incidentally, despite having both TeX and MathML available to look at, Microsoft failed to turn out something as good as TeX for serious use. As a result most journals will not accept documents produced using Math Builder.
So the aggregate opinion of the market is in. TeX was better than MS Equation Editor. (Which is why TeX outlived MS Equation Editor.)
Ah, I see the "Equation Editor" moniker is now defunct. I've long been in the LaTeX camp, so I've no idea what's transpired since 1990s when I last used a quasi-wysiwig entry called "Equation Editor."
How you managed to conclude LaTeX entry is now more popular than whatever quasi-wysiwig method MS Word currently supports is, I suppose, market information I'm not privy to.