XYplorer Beta Club

mwb1100 wrote:

admin wrote:Thanks for trying, but I will only start looking at it when...

Understood. I was just reporting results.

I would be happy to give you (or anybody else) the 100 Euros for the first ever working Help software, so don't stop trying.

After some searching I got a package which fixes the help thing in Windows 7. Extract all files and run install. For me now, all help files seem to work on Windows 7.

Source: http://cid-11e09a8750032f2c.skydrive.li ... 32.exe%7C6

serendipity wrote:After some searching I got a package which fixes the help thing in Windows 7. Extract all files and run install. For me now, all help files seem to work on Windows 7.

Thank you for finding this! Works, but not perfectly. As far as I can remember, running the Help file in Vista showed 3 tabs upon launch. I think they were called "Contents", "Index" and "Search". Only the first 2 are present after installing this package.

zer0 wrote:

serendipity wrote:After some searching I got a package which fixes the help thing in Windows 7. Extract all files and run install. For me now, all help files seem to work on Windows 7.

Thank you for finding this! Works, but not perfectly. As far as I can remember, running the Help file in Vista showed 3 tabs upon launch. I think they were called "Contents", "Index" and "Search". Only the first 2 are present after installing this package.

Well, personally it has everything i need and its better than any other current way we have in Windows 7.

serendipity wrote:Well, personally it has everything i need and its better than any other current way we have in Windows 7.

I completely agree. I wasn't complaining I hope Microsoft's update will bring Search tab though.

1) Could you upload an updated (8.30) version (dare I say keeping an updated package in LL may be worthwhile)?
2) How adverse are you to changing how you generate the documentation?
Say for instance you could still do it in Word, but had to use a different formatting in the future.

The reason I ask, is there may be a few solutions that would generate decent CHMs but they'll likely require you to move away from the RTF formatting used to generate WinHelp. If you're willing to change how you do things, I'd be more than willing to take some time to convert the existing doc into a newer format, but obviously there's no point wasting my time if you are determined to stick to your ways.

And clearly if it involves massive amounts of change to your procedures it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I'm not so sure it would.

TheQwerty wrote:1) Could you upload an updated (8.30) version (dare I say keeping an updated package in LL may be worthwhile)?
2) How adverse are you to changing how you generate the documentation?
Say for instance you could still do it in Word, but had to use a different formatting in the future.

The reason I ask, is there may be a few solutions that would generate decent CHMs but they'll likely require you to move away from the RTF formatting used to generate WinHelp. If you're willing to change how you do things, I'd be more than willing to take some time to convert the existing doc into a newer format, but obviously there's no point wasting my time if you are determined to stick to your ways.

And clearly if it involves massive amounts of change to your procedures it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I'm not so sure it would.

1) you mean the Help sources, or which package??
2) I have no problem to leave Word, but I want some open format because I don't want to become dependent on a 3rd party source format. I also need to be able to still create HLP format (near-)identical to the one now. Have you found something?

admin wrote:1) you mean the Help sources, or which package??

Yes, the sources. I realize they probably haven't changed much, but as I said, this might be worth adding to LL as yet another option for post-XP users. Plus, it might aid in finding a better solution.

admin wrote:2) I have no problem to leave Word, but I want some open format because I don't want to become dependent on a 3rd party source format. I also need to be able to still create HLP format (near-)identical to the one now. Have you found something?

Well the need to continue creating HLP as well is going to make things difficult. Is there really still any need for it?

I ran across this http://doctools.codeplex.com/ which is a set of tools/templates for Word that make generating HTML, CHM, and HxS from a Word document easier. (To be honest I'm not sure how difficult it was before.) Haven't really tested it thoroughly, and haven't even tried to see if it could eventually work well for XY's docs, but it would require converting your existing RTF into a Word document and using their templates for formatting.

TheQwerty wrote:

admin wrote:1) you mean the Help sources, or which package??

Yes, the sources. I realize they probably haven't changed much, but as I said, this might be worth adding to LL as yet another option for post-XP users. Plus, it might aid in finding a better solution.

admin wrote:2) I have no problem to leave Word, but I want some open format because I don't want to become dependent on a 3rd party source format. I also need to be able to still create HLP format (near-)identical to the one now. Have you found something?

Well the need to continue creating HLP as well is going to make things difficult. Is there really still any need for it?

I ran across this http://doctools.codeplex.com/ which is a set of tools/templates for Word that make generating HTML, CHM, and HxS from a Word document easier. (To be honest I'm not sure how difficult it was before.) Haven't really tested it thoroughly, and haven't even tried to see if it could eventually work well for XY's docs, but it would require converting your existing RTF into a Word document and using their templates for formatting.

I'll upload the help sources to LL tonite.

For me HLP is far superior to CHM. So, Is there really still any need for it? Yes, for me!

admin wrote:For me HLP is far superior to CHM.

Ugh.. such as? I can't think of a single think that HLP does better than CHM.

If we're going to have to keep HLP around for you then I'm not so sure we'll ever find a solution!

TheQwerty wrote:

admin wrote:For me HLP is far superior to CHM.

Ugh.. such as? I can't think of a single think that HLP does better than CHM.

Speed!

Help sources are now found in Lic Lounge.

admin wrote:Speed!

Okay it may be slightly faster.. I sure don't notice it. At the same time with HLP the find index has to be rebuilt every once in a while which negates the advantage in my mind.

But let's consider I'm a new user on Vista or 7.
No other program I have uses WinHelp so I've never installed the MS package.
I am interested in a new file manager, so I trial XY.
While learning and trying it out, I find myself wanting or needing to consult the help.
Hate to say it but your speedy help quickly lost you the sale.

I'm not going to try to figure out why I can't open the help file.
I'm certainly not installing the MS package to do so - not just to try XY.
Maybe I'll hit the wiki but I might be turned off by it being unofficial or by jacky's server being slow or down.
The PDF and sources are only available to me if I pay for a license.
That leaves the forums or contacting you, and if I'm not sold on XY I'm not wasting my time waiting for replies.


So is that speed really justifiable anymore?
I guess if we count it as motivation for the GUI to be so intuitive that the user never needs the help, but that's a bit wishful thinking if you ask me.

I agree fully with TheQwerty on this and think he's got a number of valid points...remember that not all potential users of XY are that "techy"...I've personally worked on try to sell it to some non-tech users who may benefit from it...and that's the exact type of person that would need the Help most...and they wouldn't be that concerned about speed, but rather just being able to access it easily.

Well yes, I would have gone CHM (with HLP as an alternative option) years ago if I'd found a bloody converter that actually works!