🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <118@unirot.UUCP> mg@unirot.UUCP (Mike Gallaher) writes:
>
>    [Re: unipress emacs]
>    Heaven help you if you need custom work or a port there's not much demand
>    for.  This is one reason why many commercial users have abandoned Unipress.
>
>Anyone who has a complaint about Unipress Emacs or the support they get should
>send mail about it to ...!rutgers!unipress!emacs.
>If that doesn't get any response, post it to the net!  No company in its
>right mind would ignore publicity like that.

I'll have to back Mike up on that. We bought Unipress emacs a little over a
year ago, and it never fully worked. After a few recent complaints to the net
they sent me the new version free (since the one I paid for didn't work). It
looks good, and there are some very nice enhancements over the version we have
been using (V2.01 is useable, but not real good on a Masscomp). V2.10 is 
supposedly fully ported (much easier with Masscomp's current OS than it used
to be), so I expect I will be happy with it. For what it is worth, people 
tried and failed to port Gnu to the old Masscomp OS, so even then, Unipress
was superior on the Masscomp.

Disclaimer: I am a previously dissatisfied Unipress customer who is now
reserving judgement. I've never run  GNU emacs because it has not been
available for my machine. There is supposedly a version available now, but 
only if you have ftp, as it is the current beta copy and not yet on the
distribution tapes.
-- 
Terry Poot, Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, (214)739-4741
8800 N. Central Expressway, Suite 300, Dallas, Tx 75231, USA
UUCP: { seismo | cbosgd | ihnp4 | sun!convex | allegra!convex }!ndmce!tp
ARPA: ndmce!tp@seismo.css.gov   CSNET: ndmce!tp@smu