Re: modifying dlg files

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

At 10:57 AM 11/6/96 EST, you wrote:
>** Reply to note from Harry Binswanger  Wed, 6 Nov 1996
06:23:37 -0500 (EST)
>
>Re: "Needless" confirmation box in DLG
>
>Alter the call to PgmFi in frame {{K,TMacrOpA}} in XY4.DLG:
>change it from "JM (Pgmfi)" to "JM (EdMacKey)".
>
>You may also want to remove the dumb message about closing the file,
>in EdMacKeyA: delete "BX vn/nv \1025Q2 ".

Thanks, Robert--that's just what I wanted to know (and the dumb message
flashing by at just under lightspeed had me a little spooked--I thought it
was due to my messing up xy4.dlg).
>
>Re: nonsense
>"Rank" nonsense is the smelly uttermost sort,

I'm working hard to improve my level of nonsense. But it may take time.

> and IBM didn't "string us
>along" (which I take to mean "deceitful promises they never intended to
>fulfill").

I agree, they would have had no reason to make deceitful promises.
> IBM wasn't writing the code, XyQuest was; IBM was simply
>writing the specs, which pushed XyWrite toward mainstream usage --
>according to IBM people, Xy4 was far from "finished" when IBM arrived, and
>the alterations IBM wanted weren't a quick fix. You know well that XyQuest
>was _never_ timely! Any more than it's successor is timely.
I think XyQuest was noticeably more timely than TTG. There seemed to be a
(minor) revision every 6 months. But granted, it's an issue of degree.
> Neither did
>IBM render XyQuest un-"customer-friendly". XyQuest was always friendly,
>before and after; if XyQuest was un-anything, it was un-responsive, to user
>suggestions or exhortations, which is an entirely different (still valid)
>complaint.
Well, they had a newsletter, a bulletin board, a telephone support number at
which you could actually talk to a helpful person, plus application notes
and new drivers for new printers.

> IBM didn't bankrupt XyQuest; IBM poured money into it. IBM's
>cancellation of the deal with XyQuest was not a reflection on Signature, or
>targeted narrowly at XyQuest; IBM killed a whole personal software
>division, a company-wide phenomenon, and the timing vis-a-vis Sig's release
>was coincidental. To suggest that IBM deliberately destroyed ("kiss of
>death") XyQuest is voodoo polemics;

I never thought that for a moment. Why would IBM care whether Xy lived or
died? My complaint is about their indifference, not any malice.

>even after withdrawal IBM discussed
>ongoing commercial relationships with XyQuest -- I don't know what, if
>anything, came of that, but IBMers weren't completely insensitive to the
>consequences upon a little company. IBMers who liaised to XyQuest on the
>Sig project were as surprised and disappointed as anyone.

Oh. I accept, with pleasure, your correction of my impression. The story
should have come out at the time. Would have prevented a lot of hard
feelings against Big Blue by XyWriters.

>
>"Atlas Shrugged"? Isn't that some sort of futuristic fantasy about
>railroads? I remember kids used to read it in high school, 40 years ago.

Almost 40, yes: it was first published 39 years ago. It's not a
fantasy--more like a forecast--which turned out, unfortunately, to be
accurate. Now studied by (select) philosophy professors, such as myself.

Regards,
Harry

Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx