Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!uokmax!cbdougla From: cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Collin Broadrick Douglas) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Market Research Message-ID: <1989Dec18.181500.3015@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> Date: 18 Dec 89 18:15:00 GMT References: <8912181746.AA01971@apple.com> Reply-To: cbdougla@uokmax.UUCP (Collin Broadrick Douglas) Organization: University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network, Norman, OK Lines: 38 In article <8912181746.AA01971@apple.com> SASQUATCH@ALBION.BITNET ("Kevin Lepard, 629-1827", 517) writes: >[stuff deleted] > >>Doesn't anybody use Text based programs anymore?? I mean, graphics are >>nice, but come on, it slows down most of my work (and I've got a TWGS, >>and Hard Drive). > >If any developers out there are listening (including folks at BB :) I by >_far_ prefer text based programs. In fact, the only graphics based >programs that get used on my GS are games and graphics programs. Other >than that, the graphic stuff is just too slow for my taste. Sure, graphics >are great for somethings, but unless that database lets me store graphics >images, or that spreadsheet puts graphs and charts on the screen at the >same time as my cells, I'd by far prefer to see the program switch between >text and graphic screens as necessary. > >For what it's worth... > >>Mark Munz > >Kevin Lepard >Bitnet: Sasquatch@albion.bitnet yes. I also prefer text to graphics in a lot of programs but there are occasions where graphics enviornments are needed (as pointed out above). But, I have also noticed that many of the text based GS specific programs are much slower than equivalent //e products (compare Appleworks to the Orca Editor for instance -- Appleworks even supports larger files). Why is a 16 bit text editor slower than an 8-bit integrated package? Shells appear to be slower (compare Davex to ECP 16). Is there a decent explanation for this? Collin Douglas cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu