43x90?! that got me a thinking and a Notepad'n someFN.ws file... wow! Why'd I think "variable screen size" meant a choice of 24x80, 32x80, 43x80, 27x132 and maybe 48x80, 62x160 or 24x132? Is it any XxY between 24x80 and 62x160, 1920-9920 bytes? Though, it may be just a rhetorical question, as I'm liking 62x140 a lot. ... will certainly cut down on the TOP/BOTTOM/BACK/UP/DOWN/RIGHT/LEFT 0's.. now to find a slightly larger font...
Gregg
"No plan survives execution"
| Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions <[email protected]> 11/29/2005 17:05
|
|
On Tuesday, 11/29/2005 at 03:29 CST, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wasn't interested in starting a religious argument -- I just wanted to
> point out to Ian that he had alternatives: FILELIST instead of FULIST
and
> XEDIT instead of the internal BROWSE.
>
> I was hoping someone with familiarity with all 3 (FILELIST/FULIST/FLIST)
> would jump in and explain why FULIST is better (if it is). Otherwise,
> there's not much point in asking IBM to release FULIST. Ditto for the
> internal BROWSE versus XEDIT/BROWSE.
>
> Anyone who has seen it -- what's so great about FULIST?
You used the word "great". You are asking for a religious argument.
Perhaps you meant "different"? A quick look reveals
- FULIST respects my 43x90 screen size; FLIST does not, collapsing back to
24x80.
- FULIST has "exclude"
- FULIST has a nicer help facility
- FULIST has a better profile facility (colors, titles, options, PF keys)
Personally, I don't care about the differences since I use FILELIST.
(FWIW, BROWSE hates my screen size, too. Not that I care. I don't.
Really. I only use it for Really Big Files anyway.)
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
