English

Post by **admin** » 06 Apr 2011 12:24

To all English gurus: I think the first page and the purchase page of the XY homepage are most important. If you can spare a minute please check if the texts contain any (ever so slightly) broken English.

http://www.xyplorer.com/
http://www.xyplorer.com/purchase.php

Thanks!

zer0 · Post by **zer0** » 06 Apr 2011 12:45

Do you want changes mentioned in this thread or PMed to you?

Post by **admin** » 06 Apr 2011 12:47

zer0 wrote:Do you want changes mentioned in this thread or PMed to you?

This thread is ok (OMG, I see endless discussions coming in...

).

nas8e9 · Post by **nas8e9** » 06 Apr 2011 13:03

Not a potential language problem, but I'm personally put off by only old reviews such as the one from October 2007 on the bottom of the home page without more recent ones. This one is from well-known geeks of course, but it still feels stale to me.

zer0 · Post by **zer0** » 06 Apr 2011 13:20

Right off the bat...

XYplorer is a multi-tabbed dual pane file manager for Windows, featuring a powerful file search, a versatile preview, a highly customizable interface, and a large array of unique ways to efficiently automate frequently recurring tasks.

needs to be

XYplorer is a multi-tabbed dual pane file manager for Windows. It features a powerful file search, a versatile preview and a highly customizable interface. You can use its large array of unique ways to efficiently automate frequently recurring tasks.

Yours is long, mouthful of a sentence. Mine are shorter and punchier.

Operating Systems: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows Me, Windows 98; x64/x32.

needs to be

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7/2008/Vista/XP/2003/2000/NT/Me/98. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, where applicable, are supported.

Since when is 32-bit architecture represented as "x32"? I thought it's "x86"

It doesn't require any installation or changes to your system or registry.

needs to be

It doesn't require installing or making changes to your system or registry.

Mini Tree, the author's personal killer feature.

needs to be

Mini Tree, the author's personal favourite feature.

"killer" just doesn't sound good...

And yes, it is Vista and Windows 7 compatible, incl. x64.

needs to be

nothing

You've already said it above

nas8e9 · Post by **nas8e9** » 06 Apr 2011 13:28

zer0 wrote:
Operating Systems: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows Me, Windows 98; x64/x32.
needs to be
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7/2008/Vista/XP/2003/2000/NT/Me/98. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, where applicable, are supported.
Since when is 32-bit architecture represented as "x32"? I thought it's "x86"

It's either x86 vs. x64 *or* 32-bit vs. 64-bit. I prefer the latter myself as more "recent" users may find Intel 8086/80286/80386 (the source for the x86 designation) slightly obscure...

Post by **admin** » 06 Apr 2011 14:09

nas8e9 wrote:
zer0 wrote:
Operating Systems: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows Me, Windows 98; x64/x32.
needs to be
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7/2008/Vista/XP/2003/2000/NT/Me/98. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, where applicable, are supported.
Since when is 32-bit architecture represented as "x32"? I thought it's "x86"
It's either x86 vs. x64 *or* 32-bit vs. 64-bit. I prefer the latter myself as more "recent" users may find Intel 8086/80286/80386 (the source for the x86 designation) slightly obscure...

x64/x32 is historically wrong but it is getting established more and more.

nas8e9 · Post by **nas8e9** » 06 Apr 2011 14:19

admin wrote:
nas8e9 wrote:
zer0 wrote:
Operating Systems: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows Me, Windows 98; x64/x32.
needs to be
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7/2008/Vista/XP/2003/2000/NT/Me/98. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, where applicable, are supported.
Since when is 32-bit architecture represented as "x32"? I thought it's "x86"
It's either x86 vs. x64 *or* 32-bit vs. 64-bit. I prefer the latter myself as more "recent" users may find Intel 8086/80286/80386 (the source for the x86 designation) slightly obscure...
x64/x32 is historically wrong but it is getting established more and more.

Some googling turns up x32 mentions, although the only site I'd consider major using it, seems to be BetaNews's FileForum. Microsoft seems to use both x86/x64 as well as 32-bit/64-bit, but not x32.

Oh well, marketing...

PeterH · Post by **PeterH** » 06 Apr 2011 14:59

My 2ct

I very much dislike x86 (as antipode to x64 - x seems to say there is some relation, while the numbers are not related),
and I'm not used to x32 (though it would be related).

So I'd prefer 32 bit and 64 bit, (maybe "32 and 64 bit"

).

Post by **j_c_hallgren** » 06 Apr 2011 16:22

nas8e9 wrote:Not a potential language problem, but I'm personally put off by only old reviews such as the one from October 2007 on the bottom of the home page without more recent ones. This one is from well-known geeks of course, but it still feels stale to me.

As the one who responsible for getting XY to Leo's attention, I'm partial to this reference but do agree about the age thing reluctantly...unfortunately, there hasn't been any well-known media blurbs recently to replace it so maybe as alternative to removing, just move it to the Reviews page?

I'd also agree with the chgs as suggested by zer0.

Don't have any real hard opinions on the x32/32bit thing...as long as it gets mentioned somehow, that's all that matters.

Post by **admin** » 06 Apr 2011 19:50

zer0 wrote:Right off the bat...

Thanks! I took about 50% of it.

zer0 · Post by **zer0** » 15 Apr 2011 22:42

I think that "Buy It Now" is better than "Get It Now". There is the whole purchasing aspect to it and the latter has an aura of "free".

Also, I'd reverse the order of supported operating systems. It's orthodox to have them listed in chronological order.

While we're at it, I'd tidy up wording of license types. Just calling them XYplorer Professional Lifetime, XYplorer Professional and XYplorer Home is much cleaner.

Further -- and I know you didn't ask us to check it -- but on http://www.xyplorer.com/homeedition.php, I would change "Features missing from the Home Edition" to "Features excluded in the Home Edition". Also "In the following screenshot of the Home Edition you will note that menus User and Scripting are missing. They are not needed anymore." needs a rejig. "Missing" should transform into "unavailable" and "They are not needed anymore" should disappear into the abyss.

Finally, for now, justifying text here -- http://www.xyplorer.com/product.htm -- results in stretching of the supported operating systems in an unattractive manner.

Post by **admin** » 16 Apr 2011 20:38

Thanks!

I cannot change the wording of license types (too much work), but I think it's not that bad.

zer0 · Post by **zer0** » 16 Apr 2011 23:36

No problem.

I don't think it was a good idea for you to put Overview down to the bottom.
I like that graphic because it was easy to digest and make a decision from.
Now, by the time a potential licensee gets to the bottom, the graphic is redundant.

Post by **admin** » 17 Apr 2011 08:41

zer0 wrote:I don't think it was a good idea for you to put Overview down to the bottom.
I like that graphic because it was easy to digest and make a decision from.
Now, by the time a potential licensee gets to the bottom, the graphic is redundant.

True, but I like the cleaner first look. But you are right as well. I will take it back when sales drop.

XYplorer Beta Club

English

English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English

Re: English