3 ms·
My experience with DVI must have been from 2003, and at that time, the viewer simply wasn't good. It was very clunky to move in the page or between pages, and t
by perlgeek 7y ago
My experience with DVI must have been from 2003, and at that time, the viewer simply wasn't good. It was very clunky to move in the page or between pages, and there was only a magnifying glass zoom, no options to comfortably change page-wide zoom levels.
I also remember the horrible font rendering mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but that would go away when printed or converted to PDF/PS, so I always assumed it was a bug in the viewer.
That said, I always admired how small .dvi files were in comparison to PDF, and that they loaded much faster. Kudos!
- mehrdadn 7y agoDo you have any different of an experience today compared to 2003? My screenshots were from today and I don't see any difference.
- perlgeek 7y agoI haven't used latex in a while (mostly writing in markdown these days), so haven't tried it in a while. I have some .dvi files lying around from 2009, but trying to open them with evince results in kpathsea: Running mktexpk --mfmode / --bdpi 600 --mag 1+0/600 --dpi 600 aebx12 mktexpk: No such file or directory and 'apt search mktexpk' doesn't find anything. So, can't open DVIs anymore, it seems :(
- mehrdadn 7y agoI think it's part of texlive-binaries (apt-file search mktexpk).