chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (10/18/86)
In article <539@goanna.oz> wjb@goanna.oz (Warwick Bolam) writes: >Does anyone have any figures on the resources required by vi and >emacs? On our system (Vax11/750, 4.2BSD) emacs runs very slowly >and consumes lots of cpu. I hate to perpetuate the editor wars. On the other hand, I seem to be one of a few who can be relatively objective, since I regularly use both Emacs and vi. Anyway: Our Emacs (local version of UniPress) tends to use more memory and the same or slightly less total CPU to edit files. It uses marginally more CPU time when people do fancy things with it (monitor the time and load, e.g.). About half the people who use Emacs do fancy things. I suspect your 750 is memory-poor or is running an untuned Emacs (there are no doubt many untuned Emacses out there). The difference in resource load is unnoticeable on all our machines except the Suns, most which have insufficient virtual memory space (backing store). Running several Emacses (Emice?) within Suntools is guaranteed to fail. A few of the Suns have expanded swap areas; on these the difference in resource load is once again unnoticeable. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/28/86)
>In article <539@goanna.oz> wjb@goanna.oz (Warwick Bolam) writes: >>Does anyone have any figures on the resources required by vi and >>emacs? On our system (Vax11/750, 4.2BSD) emacs runs very slowly >>and consumes lots of cpu. To attempt to settle the editor wars* here, I tracked usage of emacs and vi for a month. The ratio of (cpu time)/(elapsed time) was the same for each, to within 3%. Make of that what you will. This was on an 11/780 under 4.2. (*) The vi faction wanted emacs to be removed from the system! _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt