Re: A couple of issues

[m LESLIE319@xxxxxxxx]

On 16-APR-1996 14:12:53.5 xywrite said to LESLIE319
  >A couple of thoughts.
  >James Eibisch's comment that "I'm afraid I strongly doubt that any
  >Windows program, whether from TTG or not, would make me change from
  >Xy3.55" pretty well
  >sums up the essence of one of the more important issues we face.
  >We are all quite gratified that 3.xx serves people's needs as well as
  >it does. I mean that sincerely. It is very nice to have created a
  >such a superior product and to have such loyal users. If the market
  >were large enough to make a living serving that body of users perhaps
  >that's what we would do. Unfortunately that product reached its
  >technological and market limits. So today we must produce products we
  >can sell in large enough quantities (or at high enough prices, or
  >both) to sustain our organization, and pay for the cost of R&D,
  >support, etc., and return a areasonable profit.
  >Having said that, and recognizing the GUI world is where the markets
  >are, we have taken great pains (and I underscore "great") to preserve
  >the essence of our older products in our new ones. The continued
  >presence of a command line in
  >a Windows product is heresy, and we regularly suffer criticism in some
  >areas of
  >the trade press for doing so. You can configure the interface for
  >XyWin to look and function almost identical to the DOS product if you
  >desire.
  >Maintaining the high degree of backward compatibility with files,
  >commands and XPL as we have is also virtually unheard-of. I was
  >amazed the other day when a
  >new version of Excel I used said it wouldn't read an earlier Excel
  >file, even though it recognized it as such.
  >We have never sought, and I do not expect, any particular credit for
  >this approach. We do it because we think it is right and because,
  >despite the fact we recognize we must reach a much broader market for
  >our products, we want our existing users to feel that our products
  >continue to advance the state of the art for them as well. If they
  >choose to stay with the older versions (which we
  >still support, a position that is also rather unusual) that is fine,
  >but then they should not be terribly surprised as our new products
  >evolve towards those who are purchasing them.
  >That brings me to the second issue. When Peter Feldman states that
  >"Something happened to XyWrite between releases 3.xx and 4.xx.
  >Whatever it was, it was a turn downhill in terms of real
  >functionality", I believe he is in error. While
  >3.xx may be faster in some areas, and our benchmarks clearly indicate
  >certainly
  >not all, in terms of functionality 4.xx is vastly superior. I think the
  >comments of a number of the knowledgeable participants on this list have
  >confirmed this view. Nevertheless that is his perception, and that of
  >a number
  >of others who prefer to use the older product. I suspect a number of
  >them have not really explored the newer products. Of course there are
  >differences, and sometimes changes in a newer product require
  >adjustments users resent. While those things are unfortunate and
  >inevitable, they should not be confused with lack of advances in the
  >underlying technology. I don't quarrel with his right to his view,
  >but objectively (for what that's worth) I don't think it is correct.
  >I also must take a little exception to Jim Besser's comment about our
  >"unwilingness" to fix bugs. He is using 4.014 for DOS (the current
  >version is 4.017). That means we have completed 17 maintenance
  >releases, designed to nothing but address reported bugs. Some bugs
  >are more difficult to track and fix than others, and if they deal with
  >portions of our product that are licensed from others, like the
  >speller (and I am not suggesting that the particular bug he refers to
  >is in this category) they may be beyond our ability
  >to fix without the cooperation of the vendor of that module. I don't
  >pretend that we devote the same level of resources to fixing older
  >products as development of new ones, but we really do try to maintain
  >a balance.
  >I realize this message may sound defensive. I do not feel defensive,
  >and these
  >comments are not offered in that spirit. I just have a somewhat
  >different perspective on some of the issues I see discussed, and I
  >think it is worthwhile
  >for me to express my point of view like everyone else.

  K.,

  Thanks. Personally I think that wildcard search and replace, better
printing capability, and the fact that you can load a large file in a jif
w/o getting that "do not remove drive C" message are three good reasons why
4.17 is worth looking into.

--Leslie--


`[1;35;44mRainbow V 1.19.1 for Delphi - Registered