Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:42:42 -0500 From: Marc Wiz <marc@wiz.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: emacs - gnu, x ...? Message-ID: <20030801184242.GM44471@freshaire.wiz.com> In-Reply-To: <BB501B88.3AC7B%list@zettai.net> References: <20030801175143.GH44471@freshaire.wiz.com> <BB501B88.3AC7B%list@zettai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:28:40PM -0500, george donnelly wrote: > [Marc Wiz wrote (marc@wiz.com) on 8/1/03 12:51 PM] > > >>> What kind of bandwidth do your users have? e.g., right now I am using > >>> emacs over ssh to a friends box, where the limiting bandwidth is > >>> 128kbits/s (that's the upstream dsl on the remote end.), and I > >>> find it usable. However if your users will be comming in via > >>> modem, IMO, modern emacs is no longer usable over modem (though > >>> older emmacs were). > >> > >> bandwidth is good, 100Mbps etc. > >> > >> i guess i'm looking for something with decent features but that will not use > >> up a lot of RAM or processor. > >> > > > > What do you consider a lot of RAM or processor? > > more than a few MB per session. > > > It amazes me how people used to berate emacs for it's use of resources > > yet it does one heck of a lot stuff especially considering the > > amount of resources a web browser takes. > > i'm not berating it, just trying to make a decision. I understand. It's just a small gripe of mine. This thread just gave me a chance to present the gripe :-) Marc -- Marc Wiz marc@wiz.com Yes, that really is my last name.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030801184242.GM44471>