REPLY TO BUGS IN

[Chet Gottfried]

XY-> Chet Gottfried says:

XY-> -> And considering that the hallmark of XyWrite is ease with which
 -> -> one can customize it, saddling users with a 700+K xpl (the DLG)
 -> -> in v.4 is rather a burden that takes more than a couple of days
 -> -> to untangle.

 -> Carl Distefano
XY-> I don't get it. What's to untangle? The 700K DLG is optional, as is
 -> the 2 Meg HLP. If you don't want them, you just don't load them. If
 -> you prefer the Xy3 layout to CUA, load XY4-3.KBD, or your own KBD file.
 -> The ability of Xy4 to "emulate" III+ is well documented. And while
 -> customizing Xy is well worth the time and effort for most users, few
 -> would agree that it was ever a matter of "ease".

Carl, try approaching it as a new user summing the amount of material needed to know for
customizing Xy:

Xy 4:   startup.int (few hundred bytes)
      keyboard file (few K)
      DFG (700+K)
      DFL (10K)
Total:  You're approaching a meg

Xy 3.5:  startup.int (few hundred bytes)
      display.prn (few hundred bytes)
      keyboard file (few K)
Total:  Basically, a few K

In terms of what one needs to know to go about customizing,
XyWrite 3.55 is the clear winner.

As for the "700K DLG is optional," just try unloading it while using *any* TTG-provided
keyboard file, including XY4-3.KBD. Xy 4 takes it as a given that the DLG file is in use
and gives no information on dropping it.

Dropping the DLG has to be coordinated between a custom keyboard and a new DFL.

If TTG were somewhat more comprehensive, it might have provided the Xy 3 alternative in
its setup program or supplied the necessary files so that a user could make the changes
manually.

XY-> I don't mean to argue with your preference for III+, Chet -- it's de
 -> gustibus, and III+ *is* a great WP -- but the notion that Xy somehow
 -> became less customizable in the Sig/4 era is just plain wrong. In
 -> fact, when you consider the enlarged command set, enhanced XPL, and
 -> expanded Help-file system, 4 comes out vastly more configurable than
 -> any previous version.

The base problem comes from the fact that every single developer wants its software to be
"easier," and each new easier version is that much more complex than the previous.

I see it as a question of time investment. Yes, v.4 has more and offers more, but its
documentation is not its greatest asset, and so it requires much more time to figure out
than the previous version did.

If you're willing to take the time (as you obviously have), yes, Xy 4 would be terrific --
something of a deadend -- but terrific! :)

XY-> -> P.S. When was the last time you fit Xy4 on a single floppy?

XY-> Three weeks ago. I don't leave home without it. --C.

Glad to hear it! :)

--Chet

---