from L.D. Best:
>Dumb question here ....
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:52:25 +0200, Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clarence wrote:
>> WS sure as hell runs faster on my 4MHz z80 CPM box than the Arachne editor
>> runs on my 33MHz '486. Probably as fast as Arachne on my P90.
>> But then, CPM Wordstar probably wasn't written in "C". <g>
> That's likely, but was WS graphical? And was it embeded into a web browser?
> Hmm... I thought I heard a few "no"'s from you Clarence ;-)
> //Bernie
>What does "graphical" and "embeded into a web browser" have to do with a
>text editor for DOS?
Context was speed comparison between WS and Arachne. WS ran much faster than
Arachne, and on a much older computer, but didn't have the web browser and
graphics overhead of Arachne, so the comparison was not entirely fair.
