# 5,3 **URL:** \ **Category:** Freeway\ **Created:** [November 25, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249 "2008-11-25T22:46:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![cdusher](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8797f3/32.png) [@cdusher](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/cdusher)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/1 "2008-11-25T22:46:47Z")

Anyone seen any release notes on 5.3. Wondering what is different. I see there is still no multiple undo. Seems unbelievable, * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![Paul\_H](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Paul\_H](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Paul_H)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/2 "2008-11-25T23:31:25Z")

“I see there is still no multiple undo.” Yes, does still seem very odd considering most if not all WYSIWYG editors have this now. I simple answer from Softpress as to why they continue to omit this vital feature wouldn’t go a-miss…? * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![cdusher](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8797f3/32.png) [@cdusher](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/cdusher)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/3 "2008-11-26T00:20:22Z")

Beats me. I don’t know of much software, even freeware, that does not offer the feature. I did receive an email with a link to the update features. No way I could find it on the site. I’ve recommended Freeway may times. Starting to wonder. * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/7c8e57/32.png) [@Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Keith_Martin)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/4 "2008-11-26T00:27:49Z")

Sometime around 25/11/08 (at 18:31 -0500) Paul H said: > does still seem very odd considering most if not all WYSIWYG editors > have this now. First thing that should be noted here: Freeway is _not_ an ‘editor’. It is a code generator; the difference is both subtle and vast. As for the single undo, I too would like to see it. However, I suspect that there is a huge amount of work in the guts of the software that is required to implement something like this. I have dabbled a little in programming and I understand many of the principles that are involved. I can say with absolute certainty that it is a decidedly NON-trivial task to retrofit that kind of feature to an existing document structure and application architecture if it doesn’t happen to coincide with the many absolute requirements that have to be in place. Please, keep asking for it. But we know Softpress listens and cares. Does anyone really think that the Softpress gang _wouldn’t_ implement it in a shot if it was simple? Now, as to words like “vital” or statements that it has been “10 years” since someone had last used a one-undo app… oh please! Ok, “frustrating” I won’t argue with. I don’t tend to need multiple undo much in most apps, but when it is necessary it is frustrating not to have it. “Vital”, as in ‘necessary to the continuance of life’? No, I think we should back off down to “frustrating” once more. And I can come up with a doozy of a list of apps released since 1998 that haven’t had multiple undo if someone wants to press that point! ([sigh] Sorry, I’ve been reading MA dissertations quite intensively and I’m a little hyped up right now with regards to accuracy, meaning and research. 🙂 k the anti-hyperbole aardvark * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![cdusher](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8797f3/32.png) [@cdusher](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/cdusher)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/5 "2008-11-26T00:35:30Z")

I would not like to start listing the software that offers this. It’s endless. Vital, maybe not, but WHY not? * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![Bin-Ra](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bin-Ra](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Bin-Ra)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 11:02am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/6 "2008-11-26T11:02:18Z")

Well why would you or anyone for a moment entertain any notion that it was withheld or not implemented without very good reason? Because - of course - it would be a great boon to users if it were implemented. It releases a creative freedom to try things and retreat from them unharmed. Now it must be possible technically - but impossible financially at this time - IF it requires a fundamental rewrite of the code that requires greater resources than they can bring to bear. Or it may be that Softpress is incrementally in process toward such an aim. Softpress are very responsive as a software company - in my opinion - but never publicly discuss possibly impending features. Consumers and users - do need to let their needs be known for the product to be developed usefully - but asking works better than demanding in my experience. My own guess is that the overhead of such a feature would be high - in that it would use a lot of the cpu to implement and make the application sluggish or unworkable. But I am not a tech and that is merely a guess based on my observation of the time it takes to save any change of state of most Freeway documents. I would like to see a simple response from SP to acknowledge the request has been logged. Though this has been mentioned over the years - so I am sure it is completely within their awareness as a desirable feature to add. all the best Brian-s cdusher said recently: > I would not like to start listing the software that offers this. It’s > endless. > Vital, maybe not, but WHY not? > > * * * > > freewaytalk mailing list > email@hidden > Update your subscriptions at: > [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![Joe2](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/3e96dc/32.png) [@Joe2](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Joe2)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 12:17pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/7 "2008-11-26T12:17:26Z")

Hi FreewayTalkers, On 26 Nov 2008, at 11:02, Brian Steere wrote: > I would like to see a simple response from SP to acknowledge the > request has > been logged. Though this has been mentioned over the years - so I am > sure it > is completely within their awareness as a desirable feature to add. We do read all posts on FreewayTalk and consider all suggestions. As Brian mentioned we can’t talk about what we are working on but all suggestions raised are logged as such and discussed internally. Best regards, Joe Billings Softpress Systems Ltd. * * * * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![jmuscara](https://discourse.softpress.com/user_avatar/discourse.softpress.com/jmuscara/32/52_2.png) [@jmuscara](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/jmuscara)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/8 "2008-11-26T13:47:41Z")

1. I would not expect something like multiple Undo to appear in a .x update. (It _could_ happen if the core work was done in a .0 release but they wanted to ship before the multiple Undo was fully ready. Apple has done this with some releases of Mac OS X, where a feature “appeared” in a 10.4.x release or similar. But I doubt it will happen this way.) 2. I’ve seen applications that have multiple Undo, but it only works depending upon the state of the application, and then you lose the ability to undo when you change the state. IIRC, Apple’s own Mail does this. I imagine that implementing multiple Undo is very difficult when it was not there from the beginning, or at least very early in the life of the software. That all being said, I want to see it as well. 🙂 * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options) ---

**Author:** ![Colin\_Alcock](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/57b2e6/32.png) [@Colin\_Alcock](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Colin_Alcock)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/5-3/3249/9 "2008-11-26T14:06:20Z")

Think also, how long it took for Adobe to bring any form of multiple undo to Photoshop and how memory consuming it’s 'History" seems to be - and I think Adobe might have just a few more developers than Softpress to try and crack it. Colin On 26 Nov 2008, at 13:47, Joe Muscara wrote: > 1. I would not expect something like multiple Undo to appear in a .x > update. (It _could_ happen if the core work was done in a .0 release > but they wanted to ship before the multiple Undo was fully ready. > Apple has done this with some releases of Mac OS X, where a feature > “appeared” in a 10.4.x release or similar. But I doubt it will > happen this way.) * * * freewaytalk mailing list email@hidden Update your subscriptions at: [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)