Re: A Win95 question

[Peter Evans peterev@xxxxxxxx]

Phil Smith:

>[M]y impression from recent discussion is that Xy4 for Windows
>is no great shakes. Is that what you-all feel?

Yes and no. In my own limited and unambitious experience, Xy4Win has no
disadvantage that Xy4DOS doesn't also have, other than discernable sloth.
(Well, sloth by Xy3 standards, not MS Word standards.) I experienced and
was sometimes irritated by this sloth when using a 486/33. I had no more
such experiences when I changed to a 486/133, though I'm sure that even I
*could* devise tasks that would take Xy4Win much longer than they'd take
Xy4DOS. My own Xy4DOS isn't quite the latest version and, perhaps because
of this, it seems to have all the bugs of Xy4Win plus a few of its own.
Footnote misplacement aside, the bugs of Xy4Win don't irritate me. Partly
because much of what I print out is subsequently reproduced on cheesy paper
by low-res mimeograph machines, I'm satisfied with plain and staid
printouts; as long as I don't want to add illustrations, Xy4Win does the
job and is conveniently what I-see-is-pretty-much-what-I-get; if I were
using a DOS XyWrite I'd either need to do a bit more paper-wasting
guesswork or stick to carefully designed templates. Therefore I use Xy4Win
most of the time. For me, it's a good compromise between Xy3 and extremely
humble "DTP"; for others, who want to do rather different things or who
have different likes and dislikes, it might be inferior to Xy4DOS,
DeScribe, etc. . . . or even [gasp] to MS Word.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Peter Evans