> Well, Q + DOSEMU (including an extra Mb of simulated XMS)
 > is about the same in memory resources as Emacs alone on my
 > box.  It fails miserably with regards to CPU time though.
that's true -- however, that's due to the DOSEMU, not TSE.
 > The "free" editor with unix is 'ed' - it runs even with a
 > paper terminal.  If you have a fancy glass terminal, go for
 > 'vi'.
so, other 'free' editors like ed under DOS etc also are amost unbearable to 
use.
 > Question:  I run Q 3.0 and have noticed that its wordwrap
 > is horrible when you edit previously written text, as
 > compared to e.g. vi and emacs.  Is this better now with the
 > later versions?
I do not use Q anymore as I went to it's bigger brother, TSE> I don't notice 
any trouble with it. VI is only used whenever I'm forced to do so. EMACS is 
never used. (I even got a DOS port sometime ago and just stopped laughing. 
unix editors are nothing compared to TSE. except maybe for vi. but that one 
is almost uncontrollabe if you don't use it much)
--- FastEcho v1.45a+
---------------