I thank you all for the advice. I have compared a few editors and have
decided to start with Setedit.
I am updating a bible translation (The Concordant Literal Translation)
which I originally compiled for my BibleWorks program using UltraEdit in
Linux. The Old Testament text recently received a long overdue update and I
wish to update my text to correspond to the new one using a DOS text editor
first (for kicks - if that's OK - just to see if I can. I split the OT text
out and it loads fine and updates changes quickly.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:19 PM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller6...@twc.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe that was because DOS is not really made for large RAM.
> >
> > Editors I'm aware of that ran under DOS and edited really large files
> > used spill files, keeping what would fit in memory in RAM, and the
> > rest on disk, swapping to disk as required. On DOS machines, that was
> > *slow*.
>
> Most pmode editors (esp. 32-bit) don't need to swap at all if you have
> the available RAM. So it's not slow at all.
>
> And just saying it's always "slow" is wrong too. You can buy faster
> HDs now than ever. Not to mention obvious workarounds like UDMA,
> software cache, RAM disk.
>
> > DOS wasn't made for large RAM. The 8088 CPU machines on which it ran
> > had an address space of 1MB, and 640K of that was usable by DOS. If
> > you had more RAM than that installed, you needed it seen as EMS or
> > XMS, and accessed by convoluted programming.
>
> No, many compilers make it totally transparent to the end user. So you
> don't even have to write any non-portable code (usually). And this
> goes even beyond obvious "32-bit DPMI" DJGPP-based ones (GCC, GPC,
> FPC, FBC).
>
> >> Still, I prefer to switch to Linux, FreeBSD or NetBSD to edit anything
> serious, using vi.
> >>
> >> Apparently DOS, including FreeDOS, works better on an older computer
> than on a modern computer.
> >
> > Yes. It was designed for older machines. It simply can't use most of
> > what newer ones offer.
>
> No. "Some" things can still be supported (e.g. SIMD). But out of
> those, only a few get done because of lack of developers and testers.
> The other things are either mutually exclusive (one or other, not
> both, can be supported) or totally incompatible with a
> single-core-only OS (e.g. EIST). The really heavyweight stuff would
> need an entire team of professionals, though, and we just don't have
> the means to attract them.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for
> all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs
> to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
