Re: Another "Formatted View" bug?

[Robert Holmgren holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to note from "..."  Tue, 3 Dec 1996

> The logic that you find so compelling, Robert, escapes me. XyDos has
> specific ways to alter the view if wanted. Why should a save "of course"
> do it too--the user's wishes be damned? If not a bug, it's one more
> instance of v4 trying to outthink the user and failing unproductively and
> intrusively [and whatever else...]
>
> Expecting the display to stay in the view the user designates == dogged
> persistence of an obsolete habit?

The phenonmenon Nathan describes occurs only when Xy4 is in draft mode
(func WG) and the doc contains columns/graphics. You don't have this
situation in Xy3 because you don't have columns/graphics. Although draft
mode can *display* the underlying data contained in columns/graphics, draft
mode is constitutionally incapable of *accurately* editing that data;
anyone who has used columns extensively realizes that a wholly different
logic applies to cursor movement etc -- for example, an entirely different
set of functions is used to travel around and to edit the page. If you try
to insert text in draft mode, letters appear in places far removed from
your cursor. In short, it doesn't work; Xy4 isn't *intended* to be used in
draft mode in these circumstances; nobody "designates" draft view when
working with columns, except in error or ignorance. (Expanded mode is
quite usable, OTOH, as you'd of course expect.) Now, SAves have always
presented an opportunity for XyWrite to reformat documents from TOF (the
only way to reformat a XyWrite document); crank up any early version of Xy,
and you see it happening openly (latterly the operation has been DXed).
When XyWrite regains control over the document during a SAve, it corrects
the display mode. Pray, why would anyone would want to view a COlumn
document in draft mode anyway? All you see is the columnar data marching
down the left margin in a totally disorganized ragged fashion, as if it was
SNaked in a single column. It's crazy. So: Why do you comment on this
when you obviously have little or no experience with Xy4 columns/graphics?

> Tech notes and responsive tech support compensated for XyQuest's sins of
> omission, and one user wrote a book that must have embarrassed XyQuest
> profoundly for its sin of commission. But xyW 4 has no counterpart even
> for that $30 xpl pamphlet xyQ published.

Offhand I can't think of anything in Xy4 XPL which is new _and_
undocumented except the CountUp command (, where "x" is a LaBel
reference). Indeed, there isn't much that's new procedurally. Mainly
there are new VAriables, and they're all documented. What's the complaint
here?

> Nobody sent money to TTG and installed v4 expecting to continue using v3.
> Credit for any die-hard loyalty to v3 goes to use of Signature and xyW 4.

Uh huh. Well, there were several reactions to Sig/Xy4. Some persevered
and loved it (like Herb Tyson, just to cite someone you admire).

> If xy32 is free of xyWin bugs, I have every reason to upgrade.

So, Xy2000 will be free of bugs (like Sig, after 3 years of development and
lots of money) in the first version? Great news.

> Are you suggesting that *anything* posted here influences TTG?

No. Frank consistently evinces no care whatsoever about what we think or
want. Frankly, if I were in his shoes, I'd ignore this forum too: we
restrain change, we're quirkily archaic in our tastes, our
suggestions/criticisms/desires/loyalty appear absolutely irrelevant to him,
because the market is saturated and he either finds a new niche or he dies.
I mean, look at us! Many (most?) of us are still using v3.5x, with no
intent to upgrade! It's absolutely amazing. We don't buy product, so what
can we expect. Frank's strategy IMO is to leave the reactionary niche
market to the Nota Bene outpost, and apply XyWrite resources to
new/different products. But that is a miscalculation on his part, enabled
in part by our stoic attitude of patience and good will, but very
importantly because he doesn't have a clue as to who we really are.

In my view -- always pending a good look at Xy5, of course -- Nota Bene may
be the back door that extends the life of XyWrite as a writing tool. Is
Nota Bene still part of TTG? Maybe we should begin to throw our support
and pressure behind the key people at NB. _Our_ interests are not
necessarily Ken Frank's interests, and I see no particular reason to
continue to be polite about it or to pretend. He shows up once every three
or four weeks with some bullshit protestation or pronouncement, then
disappears again. Trusts in our goodwill! We're just his goddam Tech
Support department, that's all. It's a bloody outrage. He's made it
abundantly clear that XyWrite for DOS is a dead letter in the main TTG
arena. We're just suckers to hang out here doing nothing, saying nothing,
being docile. If we want to see forward movement down a pure word
processor (e.g. DOS or "textmode-based") path, then we should identify our
allies and _support_ them. That means, spend money. Otherwise, it's
finished. Ken Frank thinks we're a bunch of nebbishes; he hasn't a clue
about the number of anonyms used here, nor our ability to generate articles
and reviews in every major computer magazine in the U.S., nor our capacity
to multiply purchase and advantage. Not that I'm proposing that we should
use that power against TTG. But we should use it in favor of people &
software we want, and stop sitting on our thumbs.



-----------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------