Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There is another option to produce PDF actually, i.e., using pdftex. But let's omit it in this topic.

I usually do "latex -> dvips -> ps2pdf" to get pdf output. My LaTeX input file contains eps graphics, pstricks codes, and plain text. I have not tried to use "latex -> dvipdfm".

What are the pros and cons pertaining to both options?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 16 down vote accepted

The pros of one tend to be cons of the other, so I'll just list features. What comes to mind straight away:

dvips

  • More widely used (I think); has larger range of support in packages that use its \specials features.
  • The subsequent PostScript file can contain arbitrary PostScript code, which is a programming language; some packages require this feature to do subsequent processing on the output (e.g., pstricks, psfrag)

dvipdfmx

  • (successor to dvipdfm)
  • Aims to be feature compatible with the PDF features that are accessibly though pdfTeX. Such as PDF annotation, file attachment, and so on.
  • Started out at being better with multilingual/UTF8 processing for some of the Oriental-based TeX systems; I suspect it's required for some CJK packages but I don't know the details.
  • xdvipdfmx is the fork that allows XeTeX to produce PDF output; while Mac OS X has xdv2pdf, on Windows/Linux there's no alternative.
share|improve this answer

Using latex+dvips+ps2pdf works with pstricks , beamer and powerdot and gives you all the graphics features of xypic; using latex+dvipdfm does not. However the latter approach may give a much smaller file size.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.