Re: More on Tame

[mn2@xxxxxxxx]

At 12/6/2002 11:32 PM -0500, Martin J. Osborne wrote:
>  Tame (4.41)...there is still a problem with keys 100-103 (the dedicated
> cursor keys)
> and keys 91-93 and 95-97, regardless of whether their assignments start
> with the NI function call.
>
> ...these keys respond significantly more slowly under Tame
> than do other keys;
Yes, but if you go into the windows cursor speed dialog and set it to the
fastest speed, it really improves things, though not as fast as DosBox in W98.
> if one holds one of them down for a few seconds and
> then releases it, the cursor continues to move for a noticeable period
> of time (or the character continues to echo on the screen, if one
> assigns it a character), rather than stopping more or less dead. Tame
> definitely makes a difference to these keys---they no longer echo
> jerkily---but it has considerably less effect on them than it does on
> the other keys. (The number-pad cursor keys, in particular, are
> virtually fully "corrected" by Tame.
That's true, but on my machine to a very small extent. You are right about
the number-pad cursor keys, however. They work perfectly under Tame. I
wonder why the dissonance between those and 100-103. I also noticed that PW
and NW (my ALT cursor commands to move to the beginning of the next or
previous word) are pokey under TAME.
Did we determine that NI makes no difference with TAME? And my control
tables are CTRLX. Are your's? Should we remove the X? I'm trying to
remember why we added it in the first place (I'll use the new search engine
to check for this.)

More testing to follow.

Michael Norman