Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!rpi!masscomp!peora!tarpit!osceola.cs.ucf.edu!katz From: katz@cs.ucf.edu (Katz) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Smalltalk V /Windows (oink, oink) Keywords: smalltalk object-oriented windows hog pig Message-ID: Date: 16 Feb 91 03:07:05 GMT Sender: news@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (News sysetm) Distribution: comp.windows.ms Organization: University of Central Florida Lines: 23 I just got my copy of Smalltalk V for windows 3.0. If you considered using smalltalk to write windows applications, then don't, unless you have 3MB RAM, 25MHZ 386, and customers who don't mind upgrading their hardware to match that, _JUST TO RUN YOUR PROGRAMS_. Smalltalk for windows comes on two high density disks. It uncompresses to 3MB on your hard drive, and _surprise_ takes 3MB of RAM. You can run it in two, but it's REEEEEAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLYYYYY SLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW. It took 30 seconds to load up on my 16MHZ 386SX with 2Mb RAM. Also, as far as creating EXE files, guess what? They're about 3Mb too. It seems that creating an EXE file just takes your smalltalk image file and most of the smalltalk environment and globs it into one huge file. It does seem to trim off some of the unused classes, though, so smaller programs will typically be 1Meg. Also, unless you have enough RAM to load the entire class image into memory, the editor and menus will be extremely unresponsive. With 2Mb, just moving the mouse outside the editor window and back in causes 5 seconds or so of disk access. Fortunately, Digitalk has a 60 day money back guarantee, which I will excercise on Tuesday. -- Dave Katz katz@eola.cs.ucf.edu