Article View: comp.sys.next.software
Article #1185Re: Praise and gripes about 3.0
From: Stuart Ritchie
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:27
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:27
20 lines
1249 bytes
1249 bytes
Sam_Streeper@next.com writes: >In 1.0, Edit used buffered windows. >In 2.0, Edit used retained windows, ... >For 3.0, Edit is using a buffered window again. Sheer scolling speed is down, >but to my eye it's much easier to read scrolling text. I think visible vs. >buffered redraws is something of a religious issue; I don't really expect to >convince anybody of rightness one way or the other. It's interesting that the comments to the net have been about slower scrolling speed and not improved readability. Well, you can't please everyone. The solution? Stick a buffered/retained radio button in the Edit preference panel. >-sam I really like seeing comments like this from engineers at NeXT. Please keep it up!! ...Stuart
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1a5g0kINNg59@stephen.cs.ubc.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newcs.cs.ubc.ca!stephen.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mailReferences:
<5181@rosie.NeXT.COM> <5182@rosie.NeXT.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newcs.cs.ubc.ca!stephen.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail From: sritchie@cs.ubc.ca (Stuart Ritchie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.software Subject: Re: Praise and gripes about 3.0 Date: 27 Sep 1992 16:27:16 -0700 Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1a5g0kINNg59@stephen.cs.ubc.ca> References: <5181@rosie.NeXT.COM> <5182@rosie.NeXT.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: stephen.cs.ubc.ca