> In the past, I've played with the dvi backend, which doesn't seem to > be very actively supported but works nonetheless. Try compiling your > file with -Tdvi, and then use dvipdfm to produce the pdf. Everything > will be in CM, and the mathematics looks better than -Tps (perhaps a > subjective impression, since I am used to seeing CM mathematics).
For the curious, here's a little comparison of some simple equations in different fonts: http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/people/hoffmann/roff/math-compare.pdf Things to note: 1. TeX can use a different font for (sub/super)-scripts and for (sub/super)-script-(sub/super)-scripts (e.g., CMMI10 for normal-size text, CMMI7 for subscripts, and CMMI5 for subscript subscripts). Question to the list: would we want to support a similar feature in eqn? Now that Adobe is beginning to put a larger number of "opticals" on the market, this may become more relevant. TeX has supported the use of "opticals" since its inception. (E.g., CMMI5 is fatter and wider than CMMI10 at the same size.) 2. groff -Tdvi uses Computer Modern Text Italic for the math instead of Math Italic (Math Italic is a bit wider than Text Italic). For some obscure reason, the letters in CMMI are not encoded. 3. By default, TeX puts much more generous spacing around matrices than does groff+eqn. 4. On my computer there is a bug in the combination groff -Tdvi and dvipdfm which causes fraction bars to be drawn too thin. groff -Tdvi with dvips and ghostscript works okay, as does dvipdfm with TeX. 5. The last page shows off some cool stuff one can do passing the time playing around with eqn+troff+grops instead of doing useful work. (I had to choose an example without braces because I haven't gotten around to drawing braces yet.)
