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

RE: Placing a macro in Xy 3.55 on the Pause key in Window 95



>I did place the 1=ES and 90=BC,9,0 commands in a test keyboard . . .
>Sorry, but I don't understand. What is the ES command? . . .
>
> Suggestions anyone?

You mentioned that you're using Xy3. To my knowledge, ES is not a valid
function in Xy3. I believe it was introduced in Xy4.

I assume you're not on a network with your computer running Novell's
Client 32. If you were, that would be your problem right there (discussed
several months ago on the list). But no, it seems to be just this one key
that's the problem. It seems that Win95 is trying to retain "rights" to
the Pause key, not allowing Xy3 control of it. That's where I would start
in looking for a solution.

Maybe I missed this before in your description of your macro or what
you've tried, but have you tried putting the NI (Not IBM) function in
front of whatever else you have on the Pause key? That might allow your
macro through. Or sometimes the NO function does it for me.

Another possibility, admittedly a shot in the dark, would be to call up
the Win95 "Properties" dialog box (which you can get to by right-clicking
on XyWrite when it's minimized in the taskbar) and adjust some of the
settings. I'm by no means an expert on this, but it seems that "Prevent
MS-DOS programs from detecting Windows" (under "Advanced") and
"Exclusive mode" for the Mouse (under the "Misc" filecard tab) might have
something to do with this problem. Again, it's a shot in the dark.

Somewhere in your message was mention of the Shift key. So the problem is
really with Shift+Pause and not just plain Pause? Another idea, mentioned
on the list a couple months ago, was to rename the tables in your
keyboard file (anything will do), then put a dummy function at the
beginning of each key definition. I don't remember what the eventual
prescription was; there were differing opinions on what was acceptable
and/or what would work. Would anyone care to elaborate & elucidate on
that again?

--TLO