Re: New XyWrite release

[ajglass@xxxxxxxx (Andrew J. Glass)]

On Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:21:19 EST you wrote:

>** Reply to note from kbf@xxxxxxxx 11/06/95 09:35am    >
>> First, it appears that the load time for the product is
materially longer than >> current XyWin. While it is not too
noticeable on newer, faster machines, it >> could be annoying if
you load and unload the product a lot. Performance once >> the
product is loaded is as good if not better than current XyWin.
>> >I don't worry about load time anymore for anything. I just
start my OS/2 office  >machine each morning, mouse click on half
a dozen icons (PostRoad mailer, Web  >Explorer, PIM, Xy4,
Describe, FileStar/2, etc.) and start work. With a multi-tasking
 >OS load time is largely irrelevant since you never have to
unload. Now that we  >are all switching to the newer OSs and
Win95 is such a big hit I can't see this  >being a problem for
anyone . Perhaps the Win95 & NT users could comment.
>
>> Second, and predictably, the disk footprint is larger. I
would not be surprised >> if a full install took 15-18 MB.
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >> K.
>
>Also, not a problem for me, although I do use a compression
program (ZipStream)  >on my OS/2 laptop because of limited disk
space. 15-18 is not large, but it would  >be good to have the
option of a cut-down install.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>John Gordon
>
>
>********************************
>J.L. Gordon
>Department of Anthropology
>The University of Western Australia
>Nedlands, WA, 6907 AUSTRALIA
>
>fax: +61 9 380 1062
>tel: +61 9 380 2850
>email: jgordon@xxxxxxxx
>********************************
>
JG:

How sure are you that Win95 can handle such a load with, say,
12MB of RAM?


- Andy