Re: Another question

["James D. Besser" jbesser@xxxxxxxx]

On Mon, 24 Oct 1994, Nathan Sivin wrote:
> > I absolutely agree that if I were running 3 computers, downloading
> enormous files, etc., I would be grateful for multitasking. But as for
> finding files, cutting & pasting, I do the second inside XyWrite, which I
> have highly customized and macroized to do such things efficiently. On
> the machine I use, shelling to DOS is instant, leaves me with 624K at the
> DOS prompt, and I have an extremely fast and efficient utility. The whole
> process takes a fraction of the time using the Norton Desktop Quickfind,
> or any other windows file find utility I have tried. It is precisely the
> contrast between instant response in DOS and sludge in Windows that I use
> the latter for the few things I can't do in the former. There is
> practically nothing I do in DOS that took as long as loading Quattro Pro 5
> for Windows. Drag-&-drop resizing etc. are cute, but since Quattro Pro 1
> for DOS does everything I want to do, I just got rid of the Windows
> version. > I guess I'm leaning away from abandoning DOS. I, too, have highly
customized XyWrite; for most functions, I would continue using it even with
OS/2 or Windows. I currently use XyWrite, a dialer, a modem program and Lotus
Magellan for finding and copying text; thecombination is very fast, and I would
assume that the move from 16 mhz to 66 mhz would make it significantly faster.
I'm not sure multitasking would provide much more speed. Currently, I shell out
to Magellan in 3 seconds, after the initial cache load; if I can cut that down
to a second or less, I'll be a very happy camper.

IN asking these questions, I've been surprised at how few XyWrite users seem to
be using it for the same reasons I'm using it--raw speed and adaptability. I
simply have no use for all the graphics, the fonts, the fancy functions; with
macros/revised KBD tables, I've completely elminated dialogue boxes, which seem
like great time wasters.

jb