Re: [NTG-context] Difference between MKII, XeTeX and MKIV

On 14-3-2011 7:26, Cecil Westerhof wrote:

2011/3/14 Marco

...

On 2011-03-14 Cecil Westerhof wrote:

...

When installing minimals you have MKII, XeTeX and MKIV. I understand that you should normally use MKIV, but when are the other two used?

MKII can be used either with pdftex or xetex (as you wish, compare advantages/disadvantages). MKIV can only be used with luatex.

You have to differ between ConTeXt »versions« (mkii, mkiv) and TeX backends (pdftex, xetex, luatex).

And where do I find the advantages/disadvantages? Or can I just always use MKIV?

As already mentioned speed depends on the kind of document. In general context runs slower with xetex and luatex if only because these are unicode engines while pdftex is 8 bit. Occasionally i do speed tests and it also depends on the operating system, file caching etc. For luatex the size of the cpu cache also matters. Although pdftex/mkiv is always faster unless on eused metapoist in which case mkiv is a clear winner (the metafun manual runs in tens of seconds in mkiv but takes many minutes in mkii. Comparing xetex/mkii and luatex/mkiv is difficult as xetex also pipes its output to a dvi backend. On some tests mkiv is faster, on some others mkii but I must admit that i only tested simple document. On a raw simple document, pdftex can be twice as fast as xetex or luatex. The more lua driven features are used, the slower mkiv becomes but in general it does a better job then. Anyhow .. only luatex/mkiv will evolve so best stick to that. Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------