xy windows [again]

["Adriano Ortile" md4929@xxxxxxxx]

Robert wrote:
> In every other mode -- expanded, draft, page-line (which latter, it
should
 >be noted, is also inherent in XyWin's graphic mode) -- Xy4DOS is faster
 >(XyWin simply emulates these modes on a graphical screen, and speed is
 >miserable); and if there is an absolute "fastest of all", then it's
Xy4DOS
 >running in expanded mode, because that is the "native" mode of Xy4DOS
 >(XyWin in graphic mode under Windows can't begin to compare to the speed
 >of Xy4DOS-Expanded Mode under DOS).
 >
Having never had the perception that, on my PC, Xy4 Dos is faster than Xy4
Win, this morning I made some crude tests, using a copy of xywwweb.u2 as
working file. Xy4 Dos was running in a full screen window.
Here are my results:

1. Default: dt=0 (expanded view)
Test 1. Once opened the file, go to the end-of-file by searching
/end_of_file xywwweb/. Time: Xy4 Dos, 12 secs; Xy4 Win 6 secs.
Test 2. Once opened the file, change every CR/LF with Tab (4908 changes):
Xy4 Dos, 11 secs; Xy4 win, 7 secs. By comparison: Word 6, in normal view,
required more than 10 minutes!

2. Default: dt=1
Open the file and go to the end-of-file (by pressing ctrl-end). Time: Xy4
Dos, 17 secs; Xy4 win, 11 secs.

3. Default: dt=2.
Open the file and go to the end-of-file (by pressing ctrl-end). The test
was not successfully completed by Xy4 Dos, wich displayed "There is not
enough memory to perform function"

My PC is a 486 DX, 33 MHz machine, running Win 95; the Dos is, really, a
Windows version of Dos (i.e. Dos 7, or Win 95 Dos), which never is a "pure"
Dos. May be this penalizes Xy4 Dos...

Adriano Ortile
ortile@xxxxxxxx