O
omega
Ulrich Neumann said:Regarding the memory usage:
I did a comparison of the three programs in question:
NoteTab Light, Mini NoteTab and Jens File Editor
Just like your comparison, it's not a very formal one but here's what I
did:
Well your approach was more formal (towards yielding better numbers) than
my quick gages.
Rebooted Windows, ran the first editor, loaded three text files, did a
"pslist -m" [1],
[moving your cite, to comment:]
The Sysinternals guys are very kind about making equivalent tools for 9x
whenever it is possible. But this one is using OS capabilities of the NT
family. So all I can do is get jealous.
[...]closed it, did the same for the remaining two programs.
Then I ran a couple of memory-intensive programs, left them open, ran
all three text editors and again did a "pslist -m".
My results:
First run of pslist:
Cool. I'll snip, in order to reign in my quoted-new ratios. It's good to
see some real numbers. Even though my candidate Jen didn't come out looking
too slim (I should have told her to wear dark colors, makes the hips look
less wide).
It seems Mini NoteTab has the lowest memory usage, then NoteTab Light,
then Jens File Editor. I am now contemplating whether I want to
sacrifice the ability to open large text files for 1600 kb less memory
usage (Mini NoteTab vs. NoteTab Light).
Hard decision.
I periodically use Mini Notetab, for small, and usually temporary, files,
to have grouped together. Generally during that use, I'm not opening files,
but creating them, and the limit isn't often a problem. (But sometimes that
single-level-undo limit, found in all but the higher-end payware of Fookes
eds, it gets to me.)
I was thinking about one other (maybe) route. To target down a few small,
tabbed actively-developed editors that are good.....
And then ask their respective authors to add the auto-save all feature.
It doesn't strike me that it would be as if some major overhaul for them
to add that. And further, it is a feature that I think a number of folks
would want.