Re: Xy & Ansi

[Dorothy Day DAY@xxxxxxxx]

Nathan Sivin writes:

>I found your message, though interesting, confusing. I had read the >review
of Unitype, and posted a message before reading yours. But is >UniVerse up and
running, or is it, as the end of your message suggested, >vaporware? If not,
I'm sure several people would be glad for information >about it.
>
>You can't be serious about NB having a future. After 3 years of >miserably
inadequate support, endless lying, and finally outright >cheating me on the
so-called money-back guarantee, I wouldn't consider >even trying it again if
they were selling a Chinese program for $5.95. I >am sure you won't tell me
that all that mendacity is a thing of the >past. I heard that all too
regularly before.

Now I'm the one to be confused. I didn't mention Nota Bene in my recent message
at all--though other people's postings have mentioned it. I disagree with you
about the company's honesty--they are the most decent people I've ever dealt
with, and they have readily refunded any disgruntled customer who was not
willing to wait for delivery on overly optimistic deadlines. I agree that they
have made too many optimistic promises, and they have (I think at last) learned
to be more wary of doing so. Everything promised up to now has been delivered.
Ibid 2.0 (no date set yet) is the only update I'm still hoping for.

I posted a brief note that Gamma has told my husband and me that Chinese is not
ready for Unitype, and will not be ready soon. They (in great honesty) refused
to predict just when it will be. I'm disappointed--was looking forward to the
first real Unicode implementation for the DOS platform--but not too surprised.
My husband uses Universe for handling Arabic, and though it's no Nota Bene (or
XyWrite) for text and document management, at least it handles the character
input well. Once it delivers Chinese support, it should be an improvement on
TwinBridge (whose shortcomings impelled Gamma to undertake this project).

Windows NT is supposedly able to handle Unicode (i.e. double-byte) characters,
but I'm not ready to pour the system resources into supporting it (though I do
have it). Windows 95 has no such promise, though I suppose eventually it will
be supported by some version of Windows.

Both Apple and Microsoft have given the most miserable support for actual
Unicode, after being key agents in developing and pushing through the standard.
System 7.1+ support WorldScripts, but that is *not* yet Unicode. And the CLK
and JLK are frustrating in what they do and do not provide (like character
design packages). It seems that the two companies (if not the rest of the
original consortium) are satisfied to have a standard in place, but see no
immediate sufficiently large market to impel them to get the standard
implemented. Short-term bottom line dominates both companies. Gamma took the
leap, but it should not be the only player out there strugging to get Unicode
implementation in usable applications. Significantly, Nota Bene is
investigating what would be required to implement 2-byte coding--but
(thankfully) making no promises.

Dorothy Day, Indiana University
Bitnet: DAY@IUBACS
Internet: day@xxxxxxxx