Too many bugs in version 6... Too many...

I once tried version 5.5 and I had a good impression about it. Therefore, I'm purchasing a license for version 6 through a local software store.

I just tried the version 6.0.4 on windows 10, and felt disappointed.

There are way too many problems and I don't even know which one to start with for reporting.

To just give a few examples:

1. I can't manipulate tables, and some dialog window for property settings cannot be opened.

2. Editing texts in formulas can be dangerous, which may destroy all things around.

3. Footnote insert totally does not work.

4. Automatic substitution and fragments in version 6 do much poorer job than the fragments in version 5.5. In v5.5, you just need to edit the .frg file in Latex and give the file a proper name, then you can quickly enter whatever you want by keyboard shortcut. But in v6, you can't do this, and the automatic substitution often fails when you want it to substitute something with a rich typesetting.

5. Attaching upper and lower indices on the same symbol can lead to problems sometimes. Furthermore, in version 5.5 I can give these indices a sequence (e.g. first index up then second index down then third index up, etc.) by editing the tex-file directly, but version 6 seems to be based on xml, which gives much much less freedom to deal with the tex.

In general, I hope SWP can be adapted to the rich features of Latex and allow users to have more freedom in doing tex-editing.

Thanks anyway for your software! I hope it will be better!

Thank you for this report. I

Thank you for this report. I have entered this as a bug in the database.

By the way, I strongly

By the way, I strongly suggest you give priority to the compatibility with LaTex. For the moment, the software has too many major defects in importing tex-files. And you know, scientists publish more papers than webpages... At least among physicists, it is extremely common for collaborators to communicate with LaTex files while using different editors.

Any response? Will the three

Any response? Will the three problems I reported under John MacKendrick's message be fixed in future versions?
Thanks!

Thank you for your feedback. We are constantly working to improve the software and updates will be posted on a regular basis. Version 6.0.5 will be available very shortly.

1. Table handling will be improved.

2. We are always working to stabilize the editing. If you can produce an exact recipe for encountering a problem, we will investigate and fix it.

3. The problem with inserting footnotes will be fixed in version 6.0.5.

4. While the fragment handling is in need of improvement, the Automatic substitution should be improved in version 6.0. It is now available in both text and math. It is also possible to call your own javascript applications using the Automatic Substitution dialog. If you have any specific problems with this please feel free to report it.

5. Yes, version 6 is based on XML, which is more web friendly than LaTeX. If you can provide an exact set of steps to produce problems with adding indices to characters, it will definitely be investigated.

I just reported three

I just reported three problems separately in three messages. Somehow I could not attach the tex file, so I pasted the code in my messages.
By the way, the same problems still exist in your new 6.0.5 version.

Here is a version 5.5 tex

Here is a version 5.5 tex file with a table embedded in a formula, and with some extra settings I made via direct Latex-editing.

SWP5.5 can perfectly convert this file into PDF, but SWP 6.0.4, after importing the file, does really poor job on it (the frame-lines are lost, the baseline setting is lost, etc.). Please make sure that in your future version, SWP6 can do as well as v5.5.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage[letterpaper]{geometry}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{array}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
%TCIDATA{Version=5.50.0.2953}
%TCIDATA{}
%TCIDATA{BibliographyScheme=Manual}
%TCIDATA{Created=Saturday, August 22, 2015 17:14:25}
%TCIDATA{LastRevised=Saturday, August 22, 2015 17:15:47}
%TCIDATA{}
%TCIDATA{}
%TCIDATA{CSTFile=40 LaTeX article.cst}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{acknowledgement}[theorem]{Acknowledgement}
\newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}
\newtheorem{case}[theorem]{Case}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{Conclusion}
\newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{Criterion}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{Exercise}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{Solution}
\newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{Summary}
\newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\noindent\textbf{#1.} }{\ \rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
\input{tcilatex}

\begin{document}

Table:%

\setlength{\extrarowheight}{7pt}%
\begin{tabular}[b]{|l||l|}
\hline
$a=1$ & $b=2$ \\ \hline
$c=3$ & $d=4$ \\ \hline
$e=5$ & $f=6$ \\ \hline
$g=7$ & $h=8$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\text{ blablabla.}

\end{document}

Here I report another

Here I report another example, which shows incompatibility with LaTex and shows that editing text in a formula is dangerous.

First, please import the following Tex file into SWP6

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}

N\text{ is positive, i.e.\ } N>0

\end{document}

Then put your cursor on the left of "N>0", and press Backspace. Now you will find that N>0 is unexpectedly deleted. What's worse, if you press ctrl+z, the whole equation will be destroyed.

Another remark: when importing Tex file into SWP6, the program sometimes does not count the number of spaces correctly. You can generate some Tex file from version 5.5 with \text in formulas, then import it into version 6 and convert it into PDF to see the slight changes in spacing between symbols.

Hi! Thanks for your

Here I report an example which leads to a crash of SWP6:

Simply import the following Tex file into SWP6, then you will see the symbol with its first index down and second index up. Now, if you put your cursor on the right side of "b", and then use the arrow key to move the cursor leftwards for a few steps, the program will crash.

\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
$x_{a}{}^{b}$
\end{document}

This is just one of the many examples to show how LaTex-unfriendly version 6 is. As a heavy LaTex user, I hope version 6 not increase its web-friendliness at the cost of reducing its LaTex compatibility. I do hope the fragment function in v5.5 can return, allowing users to edit .frg file in LaTex without giving errors, and allowing keyboard shortcuts defined by the filename of .frg files.

Thanks!

Be patient. I use the SWP

Be patient. I use the SWP from version 2.0 (about 18 years - 12 or 13 floppy discs). And I believe George & SWP Team will solve these problems.

Ireneusz Winnicki

Thank you, Ireneusz. I can be

Thank you, Ireneusz.
I can be patient and keep using version 5.5 instead. But what makes me feel pessimistic is that the developers no longer treat LaTex as the essential and fundamental language of this software. From the perspective of heavy LaTex users, this is a strategic disaster.
All my colleagues (in theoretical physics) around the world are using LaTex as the "standard language" for publishing and scientific collaboration on-line. A huge variety of LaTex packages and commands are used on a daily basis. SWP5.5 is actually quite weak in doing complicated LaTex typesettings, but it is at least compatible to a large extent. I thought SWP6 should have been better, but actually it is much worse.
I felt amazed for a few seconds, when I first saw the "Source" tab in version 6, but I immediately became disappointed when I saw xml instead of LaTex. The source file should be a .tex instead of .sci or .xml or anything else.