From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 15 17:39:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08008 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:39:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (garbanzo@ghana-152.ppp.hooked.net [206.169.228.152]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07992 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:39:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA08381; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:40:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:40:36 -0800 (PST) From: Alex X-Sender: garbanzo@zippy.dyn.ml.org To: Greg Lehey cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DELETING WINDOWS 95, Please Help In-Reply-To: <19971216112010.31703@lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Greg Lehey wrote: > Were you the person complaining about a 3 minute startup? Does it > swap a lot during that time? The other thing we've been seeing is > that it hangs for about that amount of time doing a name server > lookup. In this case, it's completely idle during that period. I don't know if I was _the_ one, but it did take nearly three minutes to start up. If it was a nameserver lookup, the Linux emu code surely needs some improvment then. However StarOffice is sluggish period in comparison to WordPerfect 7. > I wrote "The Complete FreeBSD" with Emacs and groff. The thought of > having to do it with a GUI word processor terrifies me. Amusingly (and off topic) enough the Spice Girls scare Marylin Manson *grin*. > > Either way, WP 5.1 was one of the best written programs I've ever used. > > It was blazingly fast (on a 486 none the less), so I wouldn't doubt that a > > lot of it was written in assembly. It even came with a little task > > swapper thing, that while not as powerful as DeskView, it certianly worked > > nicely and came with a nice bunch of integrated apps (calendar, mini > > database, spreadsheet, etc..). Those Mormons sure knew how to code DOS > > apps back then ;-) > > Heh. I gave up on WP with version 4.2 because of the number of bugs. > But don't expect assembler to bring that much performance > improvement. I did some tests and found less than 5% CPU time > improvement over well-written C. And remember, it ran under DOS, not > under Windows (didn't it?), so that would make a big difference. Yes, but it was amazingly fast. There were also like 7 versions (updates) of WP 5.1 ending somewhere near 1/1992 (which was fairly bug free). I still have 4.2 around here, but only on ~5inch disks. WP6 for DOS and any WPWin were slow as heck, so they eventually released WP 5.1+ for DOS. Its integrated file manger was nice, somewhat midnight commanderish, and very versatile. It ran nicely under windows too (albeit with funky floppy problems) or on an IBM/PC. I wonder if it'll run under doscmd or dosemu. - alex