Re: NotaBene acquisition of XyWin

[prf@xxxxxxxx (Paul R. Falzer)]

On Thu, 30 Nov 95 09:35:00 PST, Doug Beeson wrote:

>Personally, I would rather see a good *Win95-compatible*
product, i.e. one >that continues to work under The Other
Operating System (whose name lights >fires here every time it is
trundled out). Perhaps that is too much to hope >for.

To me, the most controversial (and perhaps difficult) aspect of
Nota
Bene's decision to develop a Windows 95 version is the implicit
commitment to the Win 95 platform. After the initial hype and
hoopla, it appears that sales of Windows 95 have been flat. Many
(including me) have been waiting for the first or second bug-fix
and for having a specific reason to upgrade. Nota Bene's
announcement is the only good reason I've had to date -- and its
release is far from imminent.

After examining all of the current Windows word processors, I
have begun to suspect that anything short of a full 32 bit (i.e.
Windows
32c, OS/2, or UNIX) OS may be necessary in order to have a
program that is quick, stable, and full-featured. IMHO, no
Windows product currently in the marketplace has all three
characteristics. Prior to
Nota Bene's announcement I was beginning to wonder if I was
destined to doing serious text composition and editing with a DOS
program, or in the alternative trying to adjust my work habits to
WinWord, which more nearly resembles a shopping mall than a
writing tool.

Take care,

Paul