Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 12:06:09 02/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2004 at 13:57:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I just typed "emacs" on my dual xeon and it took (according to the time > command) 1.5 seconds to load the _first_ time (I don't use emacs, I use VI). >The next time I typed emacs I hit return and it popped up instantly. > >I then went to one of our sun ultra-sparcs. It took about 3 seconds to pop up >the first time, and then no time thereafter. > >Your 20 seconds nonsense is pure hyperbole with no factual basis, unless you >are using an old 8086 with a floppy disk for storage.. There's a joke that Emacs stands for "Eight megabytes and continously swapping". I'm pretty sure when people came up with it, it was true. Load time may be insignificant these days, text editing is hardly a demanding application either. >No editor under linux has problems either. I just vi'ed the "enormous.pgn" >file with no problems. Took49 seconds to open and close it. 945 megabytes of >ASCII text. Your machine has more than 1G of RAM, I'd wager. Last time I tried, vi performance with > RAM size files was bad. "Less" on the other hand handles them well. It depends on the application. >Let me know how your windows editor does when you open that file... Depends on which one you use. I'm sure there's a lot of ones that do badly, and I know there's at least one that handles it perfectly. IMHO this discussion is as silly as usual. As far as I can gather, Vincent is claiming there are no good editors for Linux, and Steven is claiming all Windows software sucks. Of course they are both right :-) -- GCP
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.