[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][ Date Index][ Subject Index]

Re: We should move en masse to Nota Bene

Harry
NB10 is still a work in progress. Some U2 programs run but there are
clearly problems with many of the more sophisticated routines developed
by Carl and Robert. Since NB uses XPL itself (it still has NB.DLG after
all which is essentially their version of XY4.DLG) it has to work.

NB9 seems reasonably stable but it you push it hard enough you might
find some glitches. I have found one or two routines that do not
function correctly. That in itself might be useful since any issues in
NB9 are likely to be inherited by NB10, so identifying one might solve
another.

The bottom line today is: if you want a word processor that is very
similar to XY4, NB10 can pretty well do that and in my view is more
pleasing to use than NB9. If you need a word processor with the
extensive processing potential encompassed by XPL, then we are not there
yet.


I've no idea about Dave Erickson.

Paul



On 20/12/2012 02:11, Harry Binswanger wrote:
I'm devastated to hear that there are problems running XPL. That's my
main concern. Is Dave Erickson still working for them?

I suppose I could use NB9 until the XPL problems are resolved. That 9
ran XPL quite competently (if not too rapidly).

--Harry
Harry

I have been thinking along similar lines for some time although I
might approach the issue slightly differently. I've been working with
NB10 for a couple of betas now and find the basic word processor much
better than NB9 in terms of cleanness of the interface and text window
-- I get much less 'noise' with NB10 that I do with NB9. It even
offers different styles so that in common parlance it can be skinned.
This is probably not of much interest to most XY users but I find you
can tweak some of the styles to increase menu font size, for example.

What works less well at the moment with NB10 is compatibility with XPL
programming and particularly many of the routines within U2. I do not
know enough about XPL and XYWrite to come close to identifying what
the problems might be but as of beta 7 they are still major. NB is
generally sympathetic to the needs of former XY users and I have had
quite a lot of useful contact with Steve recently. HOWEVER, their
overriding concern is to get all the basic functions that their main
user base needs working solidly. Once that is achieved then I think
they can be persuaded to pay more attention to other issues, and I can
accept that as reasonable.

My own wish is that NB10 should be capable of running everything in
U2. (Or virtually everything: there will be some routines that are no
longer necessary such as ANSI compatibility that I have recently been
wrestling with.) I too would like to see more users on the group
trying out NB10 and identifying its weaknesses. The collective
technical expertise within the group could probably help pinpoint
issues that, for example, prevent U2 routines from functioning
correctly. I'm sure there will be strength in numbers when it comes
to negotiating with NB and for that reason alone I would encourage all
of us who are able to embrace NB10 and help it on its way. It should
work: as far as I can see -- which may not be very far -- it utilises
the same underlying engine and philosophy as our beloved XY4.


Paul Breeze

On 19/12/2012 16:53, Harry Binswanger wrote:
Having bought a Win 7 machine, I've been giving a lot of thought to
this, and I think we XyWriters are in an unsustainable position. 16-bit
DOS XyWrite is drifting ever further back into the mists of history.
Fortunately, Nota Bene is our lifeline.

I've been trying using a VM (Parallels Workstation) to run XP in Win 7.
It works, yes, but with such mental and computer overhead that I'm
thinking I am going to struggle with NB 10, 64 bit, so that I can
continue gaining the advantages of the XyWrite engine.

As I see it, the situation is this: we can spend our time either on the
complexities of getting things the way we want in a VM (note the
extended back-and-forths here on DOSBox) or invest roughly the same time
in getting things the way we want in NB. The advantage of the latter is
that for the same time spent, we create a setup that carries forward
into the future.

It would be considerably easier to make the Xy-to-NB transition if we
had each other (especially Carl) to email to. I suppose that would mean
either a large number of us moving to the NB list, which I gather is
presently too nontechnical for us, or staying on this list but devoting
a large part of it (a sublist?) to things NB-related.

Comments?


--Harry