L.D. Best wrote:
>
> Clarence,
>
> WordStar isn't a text editor. I have been up-against-the-wall with
> large text files before ... too big for EDIT, too big for Qedit, too big
> for any editor I had in my collection.
>
> That was when Wordstar was put to work in Nondocument mode; but the time
> it takes to work from one section of the file to another can be horrid
> even with a Pentium system. :< You have to remember that WS does not
> use protected mode, and every time you move in the document beyond a
> certain point there are TWO temp files written to the HDD.
LD, on the above, regardless that you say WS isn't a TEXT editor, you do
what *I* do when I run into a big text file I want to edit/cutfrom/pasteto:
Run WS in Nondocument mode. That makes it a text editor to me.<g>
Re: the slow action, I can't fathom your problem. It swaps and recovers
from disc slowly, but adequately, on a 4Mhz Z80 CPM box. (64k total memory)
On my 33MHz '486 with about 670k total memory available, 1Mb files read
and write quickly enough that I can remember what I was doing. <G>
I haven't tried it on a flaming Pentium, but I imagine it's a bit faster.
> There will *never* be a "perfect" text editor. What is needed is a big
> fat clue stick to remind people that 9Mb files of text are DUMB DUMB
> DUMB! };>
Well, that's a "For Sure" *BUT* unless you mean the individual chapters
of your new Encyclopedia should each have their own file, (duh ?) there
is no more compact format than text except zipped text. ;-) I think.
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- The internet is infected - Windows is a VIRUS !!
--
