[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][ Date Index][ Subject Index]

Re: New XyWrite release

 >First, it appears that the load time for the product is
materially longer than >current XyWin. While it is not too
noticeable on newer, faster machines, it >could be annoying if
you load and unload the product a lot. Performance once >the
product is loaded is as good if not better than current XyWin.
> >Second, and predictably, the disk footprint is larger. I
would not be >surprised if a full install took 15-18 MB.
> >Thoughts?
I don't find that diskspace unreasonable, considering current
diskhogs that pass for Windows programs.

However, I already find load time for XyWin annoying, even with a
 fast machine. Increasing that would make it even more annoying.
For that reason, I use Nota Bene for all possible editing, and
fire up XyWin only when I need to do something it alone can do
(i.e. some Windows function). NB loads so quickly that quitting
and restarting (especially with the menu routines to save and
restore all currently open files--even to cursor position in
each!) requires almost no effort at all.

That puts me alongside XyDOS users who stick with the faster DOS
version whenever possible: If you can possibly devise a way to
shorten the loading process, even (as Nathan suggests) to allow
a two-stage load, or user-selected startup functions, please do
that. I'd love to have a Windows word-processor that works like
XyWrite/NB and still allows the graphical features that justify
the Windows overhead. Right now XyWin is rather lacking in both
departments. But I'll hang on, hoping that the new version
overcomes the current shortcomings.

Dorothy Day, Indiana University SLIS