Re: Is XY-Write a word-processor or a text editor?

["Michael Edwards" mje@xxxxxxxx]

                         Michael Edwards.

   Thanks for the various points of view. On the whole the answer seems to be
what I expected.

----------------------------------------
[Myself:]

>>Is XY-Write a full-featured word-processor, with various formatting
>>capacities, or is it simply a text editor, producing only pure-text files?

[David Auerbach:]

>XyWrite is a word-processor. It produces formatted text. The fact that its
>mark-up codes are in (a minor extension of) straight Ascii is a Good Thing.
>... one can send a XyWrite file to a publisher and have a fully formatted book
>emerge a short time later.

[Rene von Rentzell:]

>The former, but with readable formatting codes in the document, very similar to
>an HTML editor.

[Richard Giering:]

>XYWRITE is emphatically the most comprehensive word processor I have found.

[Detail about advanced features snipped.]
----------------------------------------

   It sounds powerful enough. I guess the advantage of readable formatting
codes would be that, if you understand them, and want to have very fine control
over a document, you can change them manually. Does this work a bit like
WordPerfect's feature where you can show (and directly change) the formatting
codes?
   I like programs that let me have control over my own work, and don't get
bossy and try to tell me the way I should work.

----------------------------------------
[Richard Giering:]

> The other major feature includes a COMPLETE programming capability much more
>advance than the "normal" macro capability associated with other word
>processors.
----------------------------------------

   This may well be beyond what I need; but it seems to indicate a philosophy
of giving users control over their own work, which is good.
   However, this seems a bit of a reservation:

----------------------------------------
[Leslie Bialler:]

>By today's standards, the latter [a text editor]. Back in the long ago, when
>it was born, it would have been considered a full-featured word-processor, but
>by today's standards it is a text editor--which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
----------------------------------------

   Maybe that won't matter. But what kinds of things are the ones it *can't*
do (that render it a text editor by today's standards)?

----------------------------------------
[Rene von Rentzell:]

>Why don't you surf to the NotaBene site (www.notabene.com) where you can
>download a free trial version of NotaBene, which is basically XYwrite in
>fancy Windows clothing.
----------------------------------------

   Well, I think I would prefer the DOS version, actually, although, not
knowing the program in any detail, I'm not totally rigid about that. But I like
the style of DOS programs better generally, and prefer (as a touch-typist) to
operate programs as much as possible from the keyboard, with shortcuts etc.,
rather than using the mouse, which can make my hand ache if I do it too long at
a time.
   Is there any reason why I should prefer the Windows version (Nota Bene)?
And the DOS version *is* still available, isn't it?

             Regards,
             Michael Edwards.