X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,66d46105d4a68b19 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public From: "Aidan O'Hare" Subject: Re: Your pretender Date: 1998/01/14 Message-ID: <01bd20ed$aee62be0$a8db6f83@mao21.christs.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 315843127 References: <883383807@global.dyn.ml.org> <68m6h1$8m6$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <34AFCADC.41C67EA6@on.spammer> <34b682e1.87736523@3com.news.internex.net> Organization: Cambridge University Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art RaD Man wrote in article <34b682e1.87736523@3com.news.internex.net>... > What are UltraEdits advantages (cons and pros rather) over say notepad.exe or > edit.com? *snip* Well... that really depends on what you're trying to do with it. If the answer to that is editing Ascii Art then the answer's prolly nothing. It's good if you're programming 'cos IIRC it does colours for loops and what have you, and it's pretty good for HTML editing for much the same reason. There aren't really any cons (except that it's shareware not freeware and hence you've got to pay for it) - notepad and edit are very basic editors and UltraEdit just does a bit more. I suppose you could call the fact that it's a bigger program and may take longer to load/use more resources a con, but that's stretching the point somewhat unless you're on an 8086 or something else steam powered :> Ultimately it's just got a bit more stonk than a standard text editor and if you're writing anything in code it's a lot easier to use UltraEdit than Notepad. Personally, I *still* prefer Emacs for Windows with the colour patch though :) Hope that helped Aidan