Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf From: ralf+@cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) Newsgroups: alt.hackers Subject: Re: trs80 Date: 8 Mar 91 03:30:46 GMT References: <978@creatures.cs.vt.edu> <1991Mar2.032644.2884@jack.sns.com> <4668@eastapps.East.Sun.COM> Sender: netnews@cs.cmu.edu (USENET News Group Software) Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Lines: 22 Approved: *not* Saddam In article hundt@OCCLUSAL.RUTGERS.EDU (Thomas M. Hundt) writes: }'Course, nowadays, programs are *pigs* in terms of size... we had }programs that worked *well*, like Scripsit and ST80-III (with }custom modified control codes for better VT100 emulation) and }SuperUtility and the assembler... that ran in 16-32K. And, we Not all programs are memory pigs. In fact, there are still quite a few good (and current) MSDOS programs that will run in under 64K. For example, Qedit about 9K edit space when running in 64K LIST file browser with options out the wazoo, runs in 32K RBcomm term prog with VT102/VT52/AVATAR, macro language, etc., runs in 46K (all of which can make use of more than 64K for better performance, bigger buffers, etc). Sorry, no ObHack unless the size optimizations I've applied to my RBcomm count.... -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/3.1 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers