I'm the guy who said it had quirks, and it does, and yes, the design for usability is pretty bad in some ways, but I have no problem with its speed. I just did an informal test on my 1GHz 1GB notebook, with lots of books on hard disk, and I get
- four seconds to open the library list of shelves (starting the reader, in other words) - no perceptible time to open a shelf from within the list - about one second to open an individual book Would faster be better? Yeah, so would thinner, richer, and more hair (me, not the reader). But I have no complaints in that regard. It's a heck of a lot faster than the first TSO system I ever used, and that ran on more expensive hardware. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Skip Robinson Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Windows Softcopy Reader gotten any better? Well quirks is quirks, but I don't print much and oddball formatting seldom makes the text unintelligible. But Softcopy Reader is clearly superior in two respects: 1. Reverse navigation in Library Reader is maddeningly slow--by design apparently. As long as you only want to move forward, fine. Just don't try to back up. 2. Library Reader totally lacks a scroll bar or up-down arrow support. Just not there. So, while it clearly takes a few seconds longer to get Softcopy Reader out of the garage and all revved up, I find it much nimbler to maneuver around town. The longer I peruse a book, the more time I save. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
