Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:40:55 -0800 (PST) From: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DELETING WINDOWS 95, Please Help Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971215163657.3066A-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <19971216092045.30501@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > > 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. > > 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 ;-) - alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971215163657.3066A-100000>