>
>32-bit DJPEG and 32-bit Arachne compiled with DJGPP seem like a good idea,
and
>it is not necessary for the 32-bit Arachne to check the user's CPU, since
most
>(all?) users know if their CPU < 386 or >= 386.
Then why do some Mac users ask if they can run Windows [insert latest
version] on their computer?
Still the 32-bit one would probably report back when launched that the CPU
isn't a 386 or above.
>
I hadn't really thought about running Arachne in DOS emulation on a Power Mac.
I suppose Power Mac neither < 386 nor >= 386. I never thought what Virtual PC
would say when asked what the CPU is.
>7) the text editor works much smoother
(Hope you don't take it the wrong way): No way!
The Edit.Com/QBasic.Exe combination is *much* easier to use IMO (but DR-DOS
editor isn't as bad as the one that came with PC-DOS 6.x - that one was
just a little more userfriendly edlin disguised as a "normal" editor).
>
I liked DR-DOS EDIT better than MS-DOS Edit/Qbasic because it handles files too
large to fit in low memory. But both of these EDITs can handle only one file
at a time, no multiple windows. Tinyed DOS version has far greater capabilities
than either EDIT, and can handle multiple open files, but only uses low memory.
There is an OS/2 version that would be not so limited as to low memory. I use
FTE when I need to browse/edit a big text file in DOS. But I like OS/2's EPM
better.
FTE: http://ixtas.fri.uni-lj.si/~markom/fte
Thomas Mueller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
