Re: XyWrite

[Peter Evans <peter@example.com>]

S L Baur:

> It doesn't sound like this editor had anything original.
> But then again, I might be biased.

I've never used emacs or any of its derivatives. I have often seen it
mentioned in descriptions of XyWrite. I'm willing to believe that it has
all the editing merits of XyWrite -- as well as plenty of its own, of
course; Xy can do quite a bit, but it can't act as a web browser. I look
forward to trying out emacs or XEmacs or Demacs or FreeMacs or Zile or
something some time soon.

> About what I expect from a San Francisco newspaper.

San Francisco has some good newspapers, or anyway newspapers that print
good stuff -- though admittedly http://www.sfgate.com/ keeps most of it
well away from the start page (try http://www.sfgate.com/wais/search/arch-pro.shtml
instead). Where's the beef? (The rents are too high?) Anyway, Carroll
writes:

>The Wordstar I used on the Kaypro I purchased in 1982 is
>a better word processing program than Xywrite.

It's certainly easier to learn.  Sorry, I suppose I should say "It
doesn't have as steep a learning curve." Putting editors aside and
looking at proggies marketed as word processors, I'd rate Xy (and Sprint)
as way above WordStar -- or indeed AbiWord, when I last tried that out
-- but WordStar as way above Turd. (With Turd, you often don't know how
to fix things; the only way is to save as RTF and attack the mess with
an editor [e.g. Xy].) I'm sure most of my acquaintances would put the
three in the reverse order: after all, Turd has a dancing dolphin!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Evans <peter@example.com>