Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!gator.cacs.usl.edu
From: pcb@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Am I Happy with MS C 6.0?
Message-ID: <8085@rouge.usl.edu>
Date: 8 May 90 04:15:01 GMT
Sender: anon@rouge.usl.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Center for Advanced Computer Studies, USL
Lines: 27


> >From article <218@demott.COM>, by kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt):
> > In article <5136@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600sirt@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Mike O'Brien) writes:
> >>From article <7956@rouge.usl.edu>, by pcb@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs):
> >>> From 'Hit any key to continue till the editor came back up':
> >>>  			21 seconds
> >>You're forcing PWB to close all files, swap itself to disk,
> >     I've been able to do precisely this same thing with Epsilon for a couple
> I agree on this point.  PWB is cute, but it's just not worth that
> kind of load time.
> But, back to the original question.  Peter, here is one more way you
> can speed up PWB if you still want to use it: in the /MSC/BIN
> directory, rename *.MXT to *.EXT.  That will turn off the extension

Yes, the original problem, my biggest compaint about C 6.0 is not the 
load time (that is a smaller gripe) but the time (almost 1 minute) 
to compile a   """"""" 1 """"""""""" line program !!!!!!!!!

I like jazzy environments but I do not want things to get in my way:
   I did not buy a new and improved product to have it compile SLOWER!

Granted, I have a 16mhz PS/2 Model 70, but 5.1 quickC ran just fine.
I am not sure why I did not look into the performance aspect of the
upgrade before purchasing it.  I will know better next time....
... and next time will probably be Win 3.0.

pcb@gator.cacs.usl.edu