Re: PT3

[fmlin@netcom.com (Frank M. Lin)]

>> There seems to be no reason why we can't have a bigger editor.  And
>>it doesn't like it takes much to change it.  Come on all pt3 owners! Let's
>>all bug Intrec to give a quick v3.1 update with user selectable
>>editor buffer/transfer buffer/code cache buffer.  Let's do it!
>
>Frank,
>  I'm all for a bigger editor buffer, but that is the wrong attitude.
>With the current architecture, there is a good reason for the size
>limit - the block of memory can be no bigger. We don't want a "quick"
>update, esp. if it will be the last.
>
>--
>  --Jay, jay.krell@cornell.edu

But if the scrollback can be free from the 64k limit, why can't editor
buffer be bigger?  I mean, how much more difficult?

Why should we ask for a quick v3.1 update?  Here are my reasons...

- do we really need anything else in pt3?  IMO, the _ONLY_ real limit is the 
editor.  I can live with it even though it's ProDOS 8.
- Intrec is focusing its resources on Mac and PC version of ProTERM.  Waiting
for a bigger update could take a long time.  A small update to increase
the editor buffer should ( I think ) be easy and quick.

So, shall we start to flook Intrec's mailbox?

--
frank m. lin
fmlin@netcom.com

-- 
--
frank m. lin
fmlin@netcom.com