Re: EMACS ??? <---> VI !!!

Article View: comp.emacs

Article #3459

#3459

From: Anthony A. Datri
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1991 23:08

11 lines
821 bytes

>emacs is more powerful; on my system, it is slower and more costly (we have
>limited cpu usage per day at jhu)

Which emacs?  Microemacs is a smaller binary than vi on every machine for which
I've ever built it.

--


  Fly to the sky on GI-GI____________ and shout to
datri@convex.com

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1991Jun06.230859.3504@convex.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!datri

References: <1991May30.124131.4679@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <8500@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!datri
From: datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: EMACS ???    <--->     VI !!!
Message-ID: <1991Jun06.230859.3504@convex.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 23:08:59 GMT
References: <1991May30.124131.4679@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <8500@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 11
Nntp-Posting-Host: lovecraft.convex.com

Reply to Parent Message