Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:20:10 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DELETING WINDOWS 95, Please Help Message-ID: <19971216112010.31703@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971215163657.3066A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>; from Alex on Mon, Dec 15, 1997 at 04:40:55PM -0800 References: <19971216092045.30501@lemis.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971215163657.3066A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 15, 1997 at 04:40:55PM -0800, Alex wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Greg Lehey wrote: > >>> No, I have 64mb ;-) And no I'm not gonna try to get 32 more. >> >> 64 MB will do. > > Sometimes I wonder, perhaps it's just my window manager eating up > ram. 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 like it because it's graphical and somewhat less awkward than emacs >>> (for me). >> >> I hate it because it's graphical and much more awkward than Emacs (for >> me :-) > > Emacs is great, and I love it for source code highliting, but I like a GUI > or support for more formatted text when doing word processing. I wrote "The Complete FreeBSD" with Emacs and groff. The thought of having to do it with a GUI word processor terrifies me. >>> If I had my way, I'd like to see a [free] version of WP 5.1 (for >>> DOS) ported over to some *nix with long file name and perhaps lpr >>> and ghostscript support. Rumor has it that was written in >>> assembly. ;-) >> >> I can't believe that. I used to write a lot in assembler in the old >> days, but I don't know anybody who's written anything significant in >> assembler on an -86 platform. > > 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. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971216112010.31703>