Re: A radical idea: a new XyWrite

[flash flash@xxxxxxxx]

On 24/4/18 05:33, Philip White wrote:
> 1.  Which version of XyWrite had the best features? 2.  Which one
> had features your best was lacking, or needed improvement?

We once took a poll of the members of this list who are actively using
Xy to find out which versions were still in use. As I recall, about a
third of the people on this list were using Xy3+, the rest were using
Xy4. This was some years ago, and I think maybe someone was still
using Xy2 then. A few people were using XyWin, but I would be
surprised if anyone were still using either XyWin or any earlier
version than Xy3+ now.

The additions/extensions (U2) which Robert and Carl added to Xy4 are
too numerous to mention here. The Threebies and the Fourblers each
have their reasons for preferring Xy3+ or Xy4/U2 which do not need to
be rehashed here. The issue as far as recoding is concerned is that
any recoding of Xy3+ could take off from the box-standard version of
Xy3+, whereas any recoding of Xy4 would have to involve both the Xy4
engine and carry over compatibility with the U2 package of
additions/extensions, and would therefore presumably be more complicated.

Xy3+ and Xy4 use memory differently. I do not know the details, but we
have tested this by scrolling through large files in both Xy3 and Xy4.
This may also be an issue for any potential recoding.

For what it's worth, I'm sticking to Xy3+ (3.58B); I have it set up in
a native WinXP environment as well as in a vDOS box in OSX. I have not
yet heard a compelling reason why that could not or should not simply
continue as is.

My 2 cents.