McGuire_Ed@GRINNELL.MAILNET (12/04/85)
Sure TPU is slower starting up, because it loads the entire file into virtual memory. Once it's loaded, TPU is faster than EDT by an order of magnitude. TPU has real advantages over EDT. TPU's language and its customization features are God's gift to wizards. For novices, there's an EDT compatible mode that appears to be faster than real EDT.
stokes%cmc.cdn%ubc.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (Peter Stokes) (12/04/85)
Now that more and more sites are upgrading to V4.2, TPU is gaining popularity very fast. What I would like to see made available for lazy people like me is public domain TPU command and definition files. I have this feeling that the true power of TPU will not be exploited at many sites (such as ours) because people will be satisfied with the basic package because "it does the job". Comments? Peter
TOLLIVER%ORX.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA (12/05/85)
From TOLLIVER@ORX.MFENET on 5-DEC-1985 07:58:38.13 EST Subject & Phone: TPU This is in response to recent postings on TPU. I too, have been using TPU and find it has some great advantages over EDT-- in particular, its EXTREMELY fast searching capability. This speed is primarily available because TPU reads in and maps the entire file when it is invoked, to be contrasted to EDT which reads in and maps only a small portion of the file. That's why EDT always says, "...working...working... working...", when initially searching for a string near the bottom of a file. Once EDT gets the whole file mapped, it too is fast on further searches within the portion of the file that has alread been mapped. I personally find, however, that the (normally short) delay in getting started when TPU reads in a file is much preferable to EDT's "...working... working...working..." Also, since over time I have built up a large EDTINI.EDT file to customize EDT, and since EDT has to read in all that stuff and process it somehow, the difference in time to open a file with TPU compared to EDT is nearly negligible (or perhaps even negative--it depends on how complicated your EDTINI.EDT file is). My approach has been to use the EDT emulator provided with TPU and add functionality that I need--to duplicate the functionality I had added with EDTINI.EDT plus lots more. However, it is much harder to add functionality with TPU than with EDTINI.EDT--but it is also much more flexible, and the results can be better. I would be interested in other's opinions on TPU and also the EDT emulator vs EVE. I've tried EVE (I have a VT100, not 200) and don't really like it. Admittedly, that may be because of the inertia in my own head. To me, to make EVE as useful as EDT, one would need to define lots of keys on the keypad to do things similar to EDT--but if you do that, why not just use the EDT emulator. EVE does have a split screen capability--which can, of course, be added to the EDT emulator--and also makes it easy to keep track of buffers in use because buffer names and file names are the same. But I find, with a VT100 at least, that I would rather add things to the EDT emulator than use EVE. Since the sources for both EVE and the EDT emulator are provided, you can take what you like out of EVE and insert it into your own private EDT emulator. I would like to hear about others efforts to use EDT. As Peter Stokes suggested, public domain TPU command and definition files would be nice to hear about. Perhaps these will begin to show up at DECUS. Perhaps other users can post their experiences to INFO-VAX. Perhaps someone may even want to start a TPU-USERS mailing list............... John Tolliver Oak Ridge National Laboratory tolliver%atf@lll-mfe.arpa
KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA ("Keith F. Lynch") (12/06/85)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 85 16:26
From: McGuire_Ed%GRINNELL.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Sure TPU is slower starting up, because it loads the entire file into
virtual memory. Once it's loaded, TPU is faster than EDT by an order of
magnitude.
TPU has real advantages over EDT. TPU's language and its customization
features are God's gift to wizards. For novices, there's an EDT compatible
mode that appears to be faster than real EDT.
How is this better than Emacs?
I am always bothered by lists of major improvements that I in fact took
as a matter of course eight years ago.
...Keith