Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!sgi!vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: PI emacs -- core dumps!
Message-ID: <70599@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 28 Sep 90 17:05:28 GMT
References: <9009272021.AA29850@mcirps2.med.nyu.edu>
Sender: guest@sgi.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 32

In article <9009272021.AA29850@mcirps2.med.nyu.edu>, karron@MCIRPS2.MED.NYU.EDU writes:
> Unipress Emacs strikes again. I am surprised that it works for
> anyone these days.
> 
> Sounds like you have an ancient version. Illegal instructions sound
> like the wrong processor.
> 
> Send it back and write emacs@unipress.com and let them know that their
> product is no good. They probably already know it, but just wont admit
> it. They are too busy porting it to suns to pay attention to sgi machines.


I currently use Unipress EMACS on a 4D/25 and have previously used it on
4D/70s, 4D/60s, and IRIS-3030s.  Like anything, it is far from perfect.
However, Unipress EMACS is farther from "no good" than other third-party
editors that I have used.  The pile of mock-lisp that does C parsing and
other things that I've been carrying from employer to employer for many
years has worked without major change on several versions of Unipress
EMACS.  Unipress EMACS is quite compatible with Gosling EMACS, but has far
fewer bugs.

The major defect of Unipress EMACS is that its price in dollars is higher
than GNU EMACS, provided someone with the time and expertise is available
to do the GNU port or poke around on the net for a binary.

It's hard for me to imagine how Unipress EMACS will survive in the face of
GNU EMACS, but it does not deserve to be castigated.  It was an excellent
and reasonably priced product until the advent of GNU.



Vernon Schryver,   vjs@sgi.com