Yarn: DOS vs. Win95

From: John A. Stanley (jstanley@gate.net)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:37:08 -0600

Ever since my system crash in the DOS import.exe due to a junk email
with a 100+kb To: line I've been using import95, and I'm happy to
report that it is far more robust. I used it to import that same
crash-packet, and it simply ignored the offending email and filtered
the rest of the email into the appropriate pseudo-newsgroups.

However, I noticed that import95 doesn't import packets nearly as
quickly as the DOS executable, so I've been fiddling around with Yarn95
and comparing it to yarnx.exe. The bottom line, is that Yarn95 takes
a big hit in the speed department compared to yarnx.exe (specifically
in terms of text searches.) Isn't 32bit software supposed to achieve
_higher_ performance rather than lower performance?

And one more thing: is it at all feasible to make URL's in articles
"clickable" so that a running web browser would go there with a
simple click instead of a cut'n'paste into the Open location window?

-- 
John A. Stanley                      jstanley@gate.net


        "Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"