Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bu-cs!m2c!ulowell!apollo!nazgul
From: nazgul@apollo.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: AEGIS/UN*X [really, DM/Emacs]
Message-ID: <357892b6.b0a1@apollo.uucp>
Date: Sun, 14-Jun-87 16:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: apollo.357892b6.b0a1
Posted: Sun Jun 14 16:26:00 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jun-87 05:59:59 EDT
References: <8706122102.AA01290@yale-celed.arpa>
Reply-To: nazgul@apollo.UUCP (Kee Hinckley)
Distribution: world
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 31

In article <8706122102.AA01290@yale-celed.arpa> ram-ashwin@YALE.ARPA (Ashwin Ram) writes:
> >  From: Giebelhaus@hi-multics.arpa
> >
> >  I wouldn't mind if the DM had more functionality, but I don't want it to
> >  be as slow as Emacs.  I like having a quick and dirty editor and a high
> >  power editor.
> 
> I agree... I like fast editors too.  Must a native Emacs be slow, however?
> What do people who've used ZMACS on the Symbolics machines feel about this?
> Does it feel sluggish to use?
> 
> -- Ashwin.

Well, once upon a time it wasn't, but the most recent versions certainly are.
I have a friend who works on them and she complains that every release is slower
(and incompatible with the last).  At the lastest release they now have transcript 
pads with ZMACS commands working in them - and scrolling just got much slower.  I 
don't think that an integrated EMACS *has* to be slow, but that's certainly my 
perception of Symbolics.  

(I would imagine that further discussion in this direction should not continue
in this group.  Aegis vs. Unix is bad enough, let's not start fighting about
Symbolics as well. :-)

                                                    -kee

-- 
UUCP: {mit-erl,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!nazgul  ARPA: apollo!nazgul@eddie.mit.edu
I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate 
everyone else's.