Re: XyWrite orphaned

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

N. Sivin wrote:
>
> If I were offered a word processor that doesn't include footnotes and
> tables, before paying *anything* for it I would ask what else it doesn't
> include. The omission of footnotes puts the projected perpetual beta
> seriously behind the 1987 version of PC-Write!

Indeed, but it is not clear exactly what Ken means by omission of footnotes.
I quote here from that portion of his message to us:

>>Notwithstanding that, however, and notwithstanding the myriad of
>>features in the product that are unrelated to pure editing, it is a much
>>improved XyWrite/Windows editor, although, because of the purposes for
>>which we use it in our other products, we have focused on its basic text
>>editing functionality and interface, and have not spent much time on
>>fixing/improving some of the more specialized functions we know need
>>work for a general product such as footnotes, column tables etc.

Now I for one (and admittedly maybe I am the only one) take this to mean that the
features with which we are already familiar "need work." I do not take this to
mean that they have suddenly gone missing.

My feeling is that the footnoting feature as presently constituted is
adequate--and as a member of the University Press contingent I have always been
satisfied with the way the operate.

Column tables, on the other hand, which are sucky, are not my concern as these
issues are resolved at the production stage, when the files are imported to Quark
Xpress for desktop publishing. I do regret that these are not being upgraded,
however, because it would make life easier.

Perhaps Ken would be willing to jump back into the fray and enlighten us.

Nathan continues:

> The best suggestion by far
> that I have seen in this thread is to make available a full-featured,
> time-limited demo. People who try it out and find it does what they need
> can then pay a "nominal sum" for the beta, which removes the time
> limitation. That sort of thing is routinely done by an "unlocking"
> procedure, with no necessity for downloading twice.
> I would agree with Nathan's point here if what seems to Ken to be a nominal sum
does not seem that way to other users. As for me, I would say that < $75 would be
okay.

> I suggest we concentrate on this possibility instead of the original
> pig-in-a-poke offer.
>

Well there are pigs and there are pigs. Some of us are willing to browse around on
Canal Street and buy "as is" products piled up on the sidewalks. Others aren't.
Depends on what you want your pig to do, I suppose.

I'll have an order mou shu pork and two pancakes, please.

--
Leslie Bialler
Columbia University Press
lb136@xxxxxxxx