Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihdev.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihdev!pdg
From: pdg@ihdev.UUCP (P. D. Guthrie)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Montgomery vrs Gosling EMACS
Message-ID: <443@ihdev.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 17:02:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ihdev.443
Posted: Fri Dec 13 17:02:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 08:08:33 EST
References: <556@scirtp.UUCP> <585@brl-sem.ARPA> <204@hoqam.UUCP>
Reply-To: pdg@ihdev.UUCP (55224-P. D. Guthrie)
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <204@hoqam.UUCP> twb@hoqam.UUCP (BEATTIE) writes:
>> 
>> It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress
>> only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's.
>
>What are the differences between Gosling and Montgomery EMACS?
>What is so superior about Gosling's EMACS?
>Tom.
>~!{ihnp4|hou2g|allegra|mhuxh}!hoqam!twb

I don't know if you would call `too slow to run' `superior'?  I have
tried to use Gosling EMACS and just plain found it sluggish.  It also
has many more flow-control problems than Montgomery EMACS, and other
problems too.  I have worked at two places where Gosling's emacs is
used, and both times I opted for another editor (vi and Montgomery
EMACS).  Montgomery EMACS is simple to use, very expandable (as is
Goslings) and I believe a superior editing machine.  Opposing comments
are encouraged. But give me TECO-EMACS any time!!! (I haven't seen GNU
yet though)

-- 
*******
1,1
< It's ten o'clock. Do *you* know where your C compiler is?
> My VAX can beat up your VAX!

				Paul Guthrie
				ihnp4!ihdev!pdg