In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Waugh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 12 Mar 1981, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
>> >
>> > > Most people on this list have access to a PC, are another machine
>> > > (UnixBox) which already has Intrernet progs, else they wouldn't be
>> > > on this list. I, for myself, use a PC. Somebody on this list recently
>> > > suggested that a Browser under QDOS/SMSQ/E doesn't make
>> > > much sqense, since the people already on this list wiould be better
>> > > of using their native browser, rather than yours under QPC under
>> > > Windows.
>> >
>> > IIRC that person said, that a Browser under QDOS/SMSQ/E makes much sense
>> I meant "makes _not_ much sense", of course.
>
>What doesn't make sense is to wait minutes while windows takes forever
>to load in every extention in the known universe just to down load my
>email.
>Far better to boot up Q40 in seconds and have half the stuff read while
>Windows ids still deciding how it is going to re-arrange the shortcuts
>this time.
>
>I'll buy it
I still haven't got Hyper Browse demo working here ... however I wish
Tarquin well with the development.
The great advantage of a Browser running a QL system, even if it were on
a PC with QPC2v2 would be its relatively small size, and direct speed.
As well as files saved offnet being able to go direct into the win1_
folders.
However, although slightly off-topic, if you want an efficient,
controllable and informative browser on a PC, then I would recommend
Opera 5.02, the free version - from www.opera.com.
It is around a 2Mb to 3Mb download, and unzips to around 4Mb to 5MB.
Small by PC standards ... yet by comparison it shows how efficient in
size Hyper Browse is at present.
--
Malcolm Cadman
