I think that at least some Stata commands have follow-up commands that print different parts of the supplementary output; thus the initial output is somewhat more succinct and you can print what you like. (Disclaimer: I'm not a big Stata user although I use it in teaching, especially because it implements one of the largest suites of analyses for sample survey data.)
Of course the same issue about prolix output applies to SAS. I have spent hours upon hours over the course of my career writing scripts to cut down 50 pages of SAS output to the 3 pages I really needed. Now that every SAS command can send output via the ODS (output delivery system) there is pretty complete control over which components you choose to print out of a complicated set of output (e.g. from a factor analysis which generates about 15 different distinct components), although the ODS programming takes a little getting used to. > 2. One of the chief complaints about SPSS is that the output > for many procedures is unwieldy. It often contains a lot of > stuff that (a lot of people think) ought to be optional > rather than automatic (e.g., multivariate results for > repeated measures ANOVA). And on the flip side, there are > things that perhaps ought to be automatic that are optional > (e.g., cell means for ANOVA models obtained via GLM). Can > anyone comment on how Stata's output compares to that of SPSS? > > Cheers, > Bruce . . ================================================================ This list will soon be replaced by the new list EDSTAT-L at Penn State. Please subscribe to the new list using the web interface at http://lists.psu.edu/archives/edstat-l.html. ================================================================
