Re: XyWrite for Windows

["Kenneth B. Frank" kfrank@xxxxxxxx]

>>what enhancements people might like to see in a bug-fix of III+

If there is a miscommunication here I need to straighten it out now.
For me, the purpose of the bug list is so we can try to fix things for
our next release. At this time there is no plan to release another
version of III+.

And while I am on the subject of our plans, the first version of our new
product (a sophisticated legal application built for a major publisher)
is due to ship within the next 30 days or so. That product contains
most but not all of the general purpose word processing functionality we
will need for a general release. It is pretty close and we will be
adding those last things back into the product as soon as that product
is out the door. We would then be in a position to turn our attention
to offering a product as a XyWrite upgrade.

I understand Robert Holmgren's (and others') frustrations relative to
the continuation of a DOS product. He understands the economic issues
and the need to find a product and a market to support our company. The
new product does offer complete text mode editing, albeit not in a DOS
environment. While the primary thrust of the product is into areas
which will not be of interest to our traditional users (e.g. dynamic
conditional text, tight database links, outlining, and integrated
application development functions), I believe it is also a step forward
for those who simply want a better editor.

It continues the same file format and supports substantially larger file
sizes (theoretically up to 4gb), 36 windows, true collapsible outlining,
undo/redo, further enhancements to styles, selectable font for draft,
page-line and expanded view editing, and vastly improved interface to
name a few improvements.

In any event, and not wishing to engage in a debate, while I understand
how it may not be apparent, we in fact do pay attention to our existing
users' desires. While you haven't yet seen our new product we have made
a real effort to continue to maintain as high a degree of backward
compatibility as possible, retaining the entire command line interface,
greatly improving the use of draft and expanded views, etc. Although
the existing userbase will not provide a very substantial part of our
future market, we are devoting a disproportionate amount of effort to
maintaining and improving functions only they will use. It would be
much easier to simply build our new product without looking back. We
are not doing that, not because we think we will make much money as a
result, but because we do feel a sense of loyalty to our existing
users.
We just can't live on that alone.

K.