nicholaA@moravian.EDU (04/16/89)
>Here's the results: (the '*' indicates the 'TransWarped' results) > Computer Speed Editor L>oad Replace >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apple IIgs 1.0 mHz AppleWorks 2.0 134 sec. 92 sec. > Apple IIgs 2.6 mHz AppleWorks 2.0 56 sec. 66 sec. >*Apple IIgs 7.0 mHz AppleWorks 2.0 25 sec. 35 sec. > Apple IIgs 2.6 mHz MicroEMACS 3.9 146 sec. 165 sec. >*Apple IIgs 7.0 mHz MicroEMACS 3.9 53 sec. 76 sec. > Macintosh+ 8.0 mHz QUED/M 2.07 14 sec. 16 sec. > IBM PS/2-50 10.0 mHz QEdit 2.07 23 sec. 1.5 sec. Rich, Also, in all fairness, you should have tried something that was written on the IIgs _specifically_ for high performance text editing -- unfortunately, I'm not aware this _is_ anything that fits that bill that anyone can talk about right now -- but, how about trying wordperfect across all the product lines? That would seem to be a fairly decent test of "performance" and throughput... The prob>lem I have with that test is that the performance of AppleWorks GS is already known to be sluggish, and MicroEMACS is a bulk port of code using APW C, which has yielded a very sluggish editor yet again. Even the slow APW text editor is faster than most anything else... but it's restricted to 64k of text to edit. (as is/are most other IIgs editors). andy ---- Andy Nicholas CsNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu Box 435, Moravian College InterNET: shrinkit%moravian.edu@relay.cs.net Bethlehem, PA 18018 uucp: rutgers!lafcol!lehi3b15!mc70!shrinkit ---- ALink PE: shrinkit