I can understand you pov, but as someone who has been in this group for a while, and a former Xywrite user, I believe the group ARE trying to help you, the fact that you are disassembling executable code and and tweaking thatecutable code. and I love assembly language programming, but IMO, it is nothave previously said here, I congratulate your efforts. At one time, many years ago, with the tools available at that time, I disassembled the Xywritee developers of Xywrite, to fit the functionality and get the performance that they did, into a 64k memory space would have to have required some skilled assembly programming and assembly idioms, IMO.To disassemble that type of well crafted code, and then to discern, from an unadorned and uncommented assembly code source, is a VERY daunting task. Prior to the advent of AI,ad worked at TI, as I had, and he was talking about a situation, that I think is similar to this. He said they had an executable code, and they wantedinal source code and were just working from the executable source. They stepped through executable, found the locations where they wanted new functionality, and put in a link, at that point, to new code they created. It can be done, it is tedious, but not for the faint of heart. A more ambitious task, as you mentioned in one of your posts, would be of porting the assembly source to C or C++ code. (Again, many years back, theret there WAS a C version of Xywrite, and that they had it or had seen it. I tried to examine this, but nothing came of it.) In a question I posed to you, I asked what you plan was, if you wanted to move the assembly source to C, how and what would you do with the raw disassembled assembly source to get that into shape for a C source translation? IMO, with the state of current hardware and architecture, C or C++ would be a suitable source language.Again, I applaud your efforts, and continue to wish you the best. I have toBene/Dragonfly software people would have their ears perked on what you areAll the best, Russ reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: e.” I came in open to collaboration, expecting more active engagement. A few people have been helpful and shared resources when I asked, which.That said, I’m continuing forward. I’m about 60% done withar I’m honestly disappointed by the limited response and lack of resources, information, etc. I requested.XyWin (XyWrite for Windows 4.13) – Key Bugs & IssuesBelow is a cleaned and consolidated list of the major, historically documented problems, along with brief descriptions and potential solutions.1. System StabilityGeneral Protection Faults (GPF) hing modes, UI interactions). boundary issues. 2. Startup FailuresFont Enumeration Crash alled. UIF Device Corruption (XWUIF.UIF) on launch. 3. Printing IssuesUWF Spooler Hang c with Windows spooler. Driver Conflicts / Lockups s. 4. Editing & Core FunctionalityNo Undo System Erratic Text Selection 5. File Handling & CompatibilityImport/Export Failures ANSI / Unicode Limitations 6. User Interface IssuesDialog Box Freezes (“Sticking”) 7. Architectural LimitationsMemory Constraints (16-bit) . SummaryTo your question: yes—in theory, XyWin could have delivered those features (no memory limits, proper undo/redo, no DOS shelling). If people have more info on other bugs please share them here with all.-Best --==================================================================================================== XYWIN OVERALL SUMMARY==================================================================================================== Total segments: 81 Byte-identical: 22 (27.2%) Tier-1 (trivial): 31 Tier-2 (close): 1 Tier-3 (moderate): 7 2 Segment bytes (orig): 672,735 Segment bytes (built): 681,403 Byte match (overlap): 375,146From: xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalfSent: Monday, April 6, 2026 5:01 PM To: xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: XYWRITE 4.018 Source Code | request for resources When the time comes, I have my prioritized wish list for improvements. I can anti-climax it by naming the top ones: 1. No memory limitations (beyond what any editor has) 2. Unlimited undo and redo 3. Not having to shell to DOS to get non-XyWrite things done. Wouldn't XyWin have all those features, and more? Regards, Harry At 03:05 AM 4/5/2026, you wrote: Reply to note from "Martin J. Osborne" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sat, 4 Martin, > Are we now at a point at which someone could fix bugs and add > features, or does that require transforming the source code into a > form that can be understood (by a human or LLM)? The source is in assembly language, which is readable by humans and (presumably) AIs. Building on it would make a fantastic open-source project, assuming it meets no legal roadblocks. The prospect is tantalizing, but it's early days. And xyghost evidently still has some tricks up his sleeve. -- Carl Distefano cld@xxxxxxxxxx