Re: Xywrite antiques

["J. R. Fox" jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

yesss@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> . xyWrite users prize above all else software
> we ourselves can bend to our diverse needs.

Quite so.

> To presume that a product with a hard-coded keyboard,
> e.g., would "provide what many of you are looking for"
> reveals a basic misperception and proves that--when
> what we already have meets basic needs and is so
> user-configurable to meet new ones--we are rightly
> skeptical about new-software promises. The offer
> of a "free xyWrite keyboard" gave a hint of
> reduced flexibility, but I couldn't have imagined
> an apparently binary-mapped xyWrite-family kbd.

We're in agreement here. No way am I prepared to re-map my extensively
mapped keyboard, which has been that way for so very long. Having .SGTs or
XPL routines or Help Frames that no longer work would be a large drawback as
well.

> ≪ Well, I do have to admit that NB is a Windows program. ≫

This ranks as a big problem for me. The Command Line is reduced to a small
supporting role in XyWin. I'm not familiar with NB, but doubt it has the
flexibility to mimic the look and feel of Xy4DOS. Absent that I think I'll
stand pat.

> I salute NB for that, and I'd like to further support
> development. If NB ever develops an interest in knowing
> what *xyWrite* users think would constitute the world's
> best word processor and responds accordingly, I'll be
> first in line to try it. Till then, when I want to use
> a Windows word processor I'll load xyWin, the most
> unfairly bad-mouthed app I know (all too often
> by people who never used it). ...

Maybe so, maybe so. I tried it, could not seem to mold it to my
preferences, or at least to my tolerances, so I shelved it. No surprise --
it looks and feels like a Windows program. And I guess that ruins it for
me.

Jordan