From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: launch a program in an arbitrary frame Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <99b286f3-e759-4bb3-a824-e92a9eaee29b@default> References: <8xxwpxyducd.fsf@village.keycorner.org> <8xxr3o5ea34.fsf@village.keycorner.org> <8xxmvyte6ei.fsf@village.keycorner.org> <8xxa8utdsof.fsf@village.keycorner.org> <8xx615hdozz.fsf@village.keycorner.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1437266108 28812 80.91.229.3 (19 Jul 2015 00:35:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:35:08 +0000 (UTC) To: Hikaru Ichijyo , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 19 02:34:56 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGcZD-0007E0-05 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:34:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50203 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGcZC-0003g7-Ed for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:34:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGcYy-0003eI-SS for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:34:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGcYt-0001GY-OI for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:34:40 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:50370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGcWh-0000U6-Gs for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:34:35 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t6J0WHxc024294 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:32:18 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6J0W50X025728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:32:17 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0019.oracle.com (abhmp0019.oracle.com [141.146.116.25]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6J0W4xT010316; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:32:05 GMT In-Reply-To: <8xx615hdozz.fsf@village.keycorner.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:105834 Archived-At: > > FWIW, I used Emacs heavily back then, on Unix workstations, Lisp > > machines, and terminals (UNIX, VAX/VMS). I never found it to be > > a memory hog or sluggish or bloated. Clearly, Emacs was smaller > > back then too, but I've never noticed it being particularly slow. >=20 > Remember, there was a time it was considered impressive to PC users to > have memory measured in megabytes...any number of megabytes. Even one > megabyte could be seen as a lot. > 80's workstations would have several meg...but is that really a lot if > you're going to run a serious Emacs session with lots of buffers? Whatever they had was more than enough for running Emacs, in my experience. Whether Sun, SGI, or another brand. Other applications could sometimes tax a workstation, but not Emacs. (Of course, you could use Emacs, or any other program, to do heavy enough work to bring any system to a crawl.) > Keep in mind, the whole point of Emacs is... It wasn't a problem. At all. Do you remember it being a problem to use Emacs on a workstation, or are you just repeating something you heard? So far, you've said that workstations were limited in resources and Emacs was/is a memory hog. Do you actually remember having a problem using Emacs on a workstation in the 80s? It would be interesting to hear from others too about this. > Since it sounds like you were on UNIX machines that early, you > may also remember that when X came around, some people considered > that a luxury, since that took a lot of system memory too, even > on machines that had a framebuffer and were made for it. A > lot of people just prefered to do without it. For the most part, we did use X when it came out. Yes, it was a monster, but many people found it worth it. The question here is about Emacs, however. Emacs is not X Window - far from it. > Not only was Emacs considered a hog by some people at that time, > but later in the early 90's That's not my recollection. Except by comparison with editors like `vi'. I don't recall Emacs ever slowing anyone down. Remember, you could (and still can) use Emacs in terminal mode, which alone can make a big difference if your context is limited. But when graphic Emacs became available I used it most of the time, and I do not recall any performance problems with it. > some people even felt that way about the then-new bash shell. X Window and bash are not Emacs.