Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stretch.cs.mun.ca!leif!mquigley
From: mquigley@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Martyn Quigley, Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: WordPerfect (Was: Wordprocessors for UNIX)
Message-ID: <122969@kean.ucs.mun.ca>
Date: 7 Aug 90 19:12:06 GMT
References: <60@nososl.UUCP> <10@utekza.UUCP> <29@mq.UUCP>
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Lines: 35

In article <29@mq.UUCP>, alan@mq.UUCP (Alan H. Mintz) writes:
in reponse to a query about Wordprocessors for *nix

> From the WordPerfect Corp. technical docs:
> 
> Memory Requirements:
> 
>                    WP 4.2         WP5.0
>                    ------         --------
> 1st User           634K           1.6M !!!
> Each Add'tl user   258K           385K
> 
> These figures are for SCO XENIX 386 (the only supported UNIX platform for 5.0
> as of May 1990). I would seriously evaluate the need for the additional
> features found in 5.0 versus the bizarre memory requirement difference.

I'm running WP5.0 under SCO Xenix 2.3.3.  The date on the discs is 
4/24/90.

  312 /u/wp/bin> l wp
  ---x--x--x	1 root	root	1723560 Jul 18 15:09 wp

And this puppy is S L O W.  I'm running on a 25 MHz '386 and the Xenix
version is *nowhere* near as fast as the DOS version running under DOS
on the same machine.  Extra overhead with Xenix?  Just for fun I
started the Xenix version on one multiscreen, logged into another,
started VPIX and then started the DOS version.  No competition; even
under VPIX the DOS version is MUCH faster. 

I have some minor gripes about the Xenix version.  Send mail if you 
are interested.

> < Alan H. Mintz             | Voice +1 714 980 1034 >

Martyn