carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) (03/05/89)
In article <958@starfish.Convergent.COM> jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: >However (no flame intended) why the heck would you want >such an abomination? vi is horrible and unfriendly ... I've used lots >of editors and vi is almost the worst. EDITOR WARS! I use vi because I work on lots of different systems, and lots of different terminals. It's a least-common-denominator solution. I can sit down at practically any UN*X system, with practically any terminal, and use essentially ALL the features of vi. I don't have to get PD source code and 'make' it (for a 5-minute editing job on a mchine I'll never see again). I don't have to carry a keyboard-definition file around with me, or customize it for a braindamaged terminal. If I did much PC work, I suppose I'd have to carry around a diskette, but that's not currently a problem. (I can also use 'ed' on UN*X and 'edlin' on the PC, if I have to.) As for "unfriendly", vi is hard to LEARN, not hard to USE. I assure you, I can be quite productive with vi - especially for quick jobs. Sure, vi has some drawbacks; mainly it's outweighed by special-purpose solutions. BRIEF is quite good on the PC, and I tend to use Micro-EMACS for larger, prolonged, complex multi-file editing. But I can't compile on my PC with M-E loaded; and I don't want to start it up again to correct a semicolon - so I fall back on vi. And that tends to increase my reliance on vi: I use it all the time, so I know the keys and commands. I still have to look things up for EMACS if I want to do anything complicated. And if I'm using somebody else's key bindings, I'm totally screwed. Why is the sequence 'dw' to delete a word "unfriendly"? -- Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"The right to be heard does not | automatically include the right UUCP: carlp@iscuvc.ISCS.COM | to be taken seriously." ...uunet!iscuva!carlp | - H. H. Humphrey
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/07/89)
In article <2386@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: > > EDITOR WARS! > As for "unfriendly", vi is hard to LEARN, not hard to USE. I assure you, I > can be quite productive with vi - especially for quick jobs. I agree with you there. It is hard to learn. But once you master the wierd commands, it's not so bad. As far as full screen editors go, it's my last choice, but it's not real bad. > > Sure, vi has some drawbacks; mainly it's outweighed by special-purpose > solutions. BRIEF is quite good on the PC, and I tend to use Micro-EMACS > for larger, prolonged, complex multi-file editing. But I can't compile on > my PC with M-E loaded; and I don't want to start it up again to correct a > semicolon - so I fall back on vi. And that tends to increase my reliance > on vi: I use it all the time, so I know the keys and commands. I still > have to look things up for EMACS if I want to do anything complicated. And > if I'm using somebody else's key bindings, I'm totally screwed. Why is the > sequence 'dw' to delete a word "unfriendly"? well, dw is not so bad, but let's look at some of the other commands: dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) $ = end of file A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! sure there probably are reasons for such cryptic commands. For instance, the dd for delete line is for convenience in deleting lines, you just have to keep pressing the same key and watch the lines disapear. But that doesn't make it any easier to learn or any more friendly. Personally I like EDT (yes I grew up on DEC). It's easy to use, the keypad is designed to do most of the editing commands, like del-word, del-line, go to end of line, go to beginning of line, cut, paste, etc. I like the keypad approach rather than the single letter commands in some editors, because you don't have to leave insert mode in order to do editing. I have see EDT for msdos machines, it is a very good port and very easy to learn and use. -- John Sparks // Amiga | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks \X/ UUCP | >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/09/89)
In article <415@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > well, dw is not so bad, but let's look at some of the other commands: > dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) Because the syntax is 'd<x>' where '<x>' is a cursor motion command. 'l' means 'forward one character'. 'dl' is delete one character forward. Actually, delete line is '^dj'. 'dd' is a shortcut. > ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) End edit and save file is ':wq<CR>'. End edit and save if changes is ':x<CR>'. 'ZZ' is a shortcut. > $ = end of file '$' is end of line, based on the regular expression syntax. It's a cursor motion command, actually. End of file is the default for the goto-line-number command, 'G'. > A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! Append to the end of line is '$a'. 'A' is a shortcut. > sure there probably are reasons for such cryptic commands. Yes, they're shortcuts for experts. > But that doesn't make it any easier to learn or any more friendly. Which is why it's a good idea to learn the *syntax* of vi, and worry about the shortcuts later. > Personally I like EDT (yes I grew up on DEC). It's easy to use, the keypad > is designed to do most of the editing commands, like del-word, del-line, go > to end of line, go to beginning of line, cut, paste, etc. How about 'go to new file'? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (03/10/89)
I'm not a big vi fan, but I think I at least understand some of its command mnemonics... In article <415@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >$ = end of file This is a vestige of vi's history. vi is descended from ed (which itself is descended from a line editor on CTSS in the early 60's), and $ has been used in all these editors to mean the end of something. In address expressions it means the last line of the buffer, and in regular expressions it means the end of a line. In the line editors, just typing $ will be taken as a line address, so it will select the last line of the buffer. In vi, $ is the same as :$<RET>. >A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! "insert at end" == "Append", perhaps? I'm surprised you didn't mention the motion commands h, j, k, and l, which I heard were chosen because the vi developer used an ADM3A terminal, which had arrows on the front of these indicating the control operation (control-H (BackSpace) goes to the left, control-J (LineFeed) goes down, etc.) they performed. >Personally I like EDT (yes I grew up on DEC). It's easy to use, the keypad >is designed to do most of the editing commands, like del-word, del-line, go >to end of line, go to beginning of line, cut, paste, etc. It's only easy if your keypad has keytops that have the appropriate legends. If not, EDT is much harder than vi or Emacs, which at least have SOME mnemonic commands. >I like the keypad approach rather than the single letter commands in some >editors, because you don't have to leave insert mode in order to do editing. You don't have to leave insert mode in Emacs-style editors, either, yet it uses mostly single-character commands (unless you count control-<char> as two characters). And it isn't dependent on having a special keypad. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
aem@ibiza.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) (03/10/89)
In <415@corpane.UUCP>, <sparks@corpane.UUCP> wrote: >dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) >ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) >$ = end of file >A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! dd-delete line dw-delete word A-append at beginning of line a-append after current position I-insert at beginning of line i-insert at current position $-end of line ^-beginning of line it's really all straight forward. ZZ is just a convenience rather than :wq -write and quit >Personally I like EDT (yes I grew up on DEC). It's easy to use, the keypad >is designed to do most of the editing commands, like del-word, del-line, go >to end of line, go to beginning of line, cut, paste, etc. It's what you're used to. I didn't like vi at first -- the first full-screen editor I used was on a Durango F-85 and that's what I liked. (Before that I used @med on Univacs). After using vi a bit I found it was much more powerful than the other. No doubt if I sat down and started using emacs for awhile I would like it and appreciate the features it has over vi, but right now it's just that cumbersome big editor with the weird syntax. It's ridiculous to complain about editors -- they're just tools. Don't like one? Use a different one. Fine by me. aem a.e.mossberg aem@mthvax.miami.edu MIAVAX::AEM (Span) aem@umiami.BITNET (soon) Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. - Rudyard Kipling
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (03/10/89)
In article <415@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >In article <2386@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: >> >> EDITOR WARS! > >well, dw is not so bad, but let's look at some of the other commands: > >dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) Stuttered 'delete'. 'dl' means delete next character, primarily because 'l' means move to next character. >ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) I don't know why. It sure does beat hell out of ':wq', and I'd rather do 'ZZ' AND chop off my left foot twice a day than have to go through something as hideous as "ctrl-X ctrl-C n" just to save & quit... >$ = end of file in a regular expression, yes; type '$' as a key command, however, and it puts you at the end of the line. Not great, not terrible. I don't know how emacs does go-to-end-of-line, and I do know that you have to learn EDT macro programming to get it to work there. >A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! No, "append to end of line." 'a' is append-after-this-character, so it's only natural that big-a is append-after-all-these-characters. Any editor that takes my fingers off the 50-or-so major keys of a keyboard or requires several-and-simultaneous strokes just to get the SIMPLE STUFF done is going to kill my productivity. Using VI is as easy as typing. --Blair "I win. Go home."
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (03/10/89)
In article <2386@iscuva.ISCS.COM> carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: @ I still @ have to look things up for EMACS if I want to do anything complicated. And @ if I'm using somebody else's key bindings, I'm totally screwed. Why is the @ sequence 'dw' to delete a word "unfriendly"? One huge adavantage of emacs is that it's documented online. The huge disadvantage of vi is that it isn't. -- >`Take that, Eliot!' -- 20th century composer on a waltz in D major -- Noam Elkies
mercer@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) (03/11/89)
In article <1472@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >In <415@corpane.UUCP>, <sparks@corpane.UUCP> wrote: > >>dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) >>ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) Why ZZ - look at your keyboard. The Z and Shift are next to each other on many (most?) keyboards. It's impossible to enter the sequence accidentally, but very convenient to enter on purpose. When I first began using vi, I was moving from IBM 3270 full screen editors, like ISPF Edit and Xedit, so I was very dependent on using PF keys. I used to use PF3 to save and exit, just like in IBM editors, but eventually found ZZ far easier to use. >>$ = end of file >>A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! > >dd-delete line The syntax for vi commands is command-character or command-character/target depending on whether the command-character takes a target. X,x and ~, for instance, do not take targets. d,y,c,! take targets. The repetition of the command character, for instance yy, dd, cc, !!, takes the current line as the target. It's completely consistent and relatively simple to remember. >dw-delete word >A-append at beginning of line >a-append after current position >I-insert at beginning of line >i-insert at current position >$-end of line >^-beginning of line > When I first got started on UNIX, my group put together a wish list for our text editor. We considered vi totally unsuitable (never having used anything more complex than Xedit). We wanted something that would allow us to insert models of text (like C skeletons) like we enjoyed with ISPF Edit and Amdahl's UTS Ned editor. We wanted to be able to reformat text, like with WordStar. We wanted to be able to edit multiple files, to move data between files, to interface actively with the shell, to have online help information, to use menus, to do block moves, a spelling checker... Finally, we found that editor - and it turned out to be !!!!! VI Yes, poor, humble, but immensely powerful vi, the Clark Kent of editors. What you need, if you are so disatisfied with vi, is a few good vi hackers to build you a toolkit to turbo charge vi and make it into whatever you want. How did we transform VI from plain Jane to Jane Fonda - simple as ! The !, w! and r! commands allow vi to read and write to the shell. For instance, the skeleton program takes the current line, writes it to a FIFO opened by a background process. That process compares the supplied line to entries in a skeleton file (a simple text file that's easy to build and maintain). If a match is found, the matching lines are written to an output FIFO that vi has opened with a :r command (all this is done by pressing a PF key with a macro defined for the needed operations). The skeleton is imported into the file at the exact indentation as the original keyword. If no match is found in the skeleton file, no problem, the lint files are searched - voila, instant lint. As for the spelling checker, that to is pf key driven, sending the current page or paragraph to the spellchecker (the UNIX spell, at least SYS5, is a horribly slow shell script. It was very easy to modify to speed up, and by sending its output to sed, the errant words can be marked so they can be easily found and corrected.) Reformatting paragraphs is also as easy as pressing one key (all you need is the correct reformatting program) as is drawing boxes (ours require special characters because they are printed on a laser printer off our MVS host). We found vi so useful, that we abandoned development of the editor portion of the user interface of our project and used vi instead. The rest of the user interface uses menus that drop down on the vi session. I was working on a split window version of vi (without touching vi object or source code) when I moved to another department). now, ZZ -- Dan Mercer Reply-To: mercer@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer)
gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) (03/11/89)
From article <415@corpane.UUCP>, by sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks): > well, dw is not so bad, but let's look at some of the other commands: > > dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) d followed by any keystroke that moves the cursor deletes the region that the cursor traverses (y, c, < and > act the same way too). So dl deletes one character or 5dl deletes 5. 'x' internally is just a macro of dl. > ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) Spare keys probably > $ = end of file ... and end of line. All through UN*X, '$' means last or end of something, it is pretty orthognal in that respect. > A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! Try append... it is a macro for '$a'... -- Gregg Wonderly DOMAIN: gregg@ihlpb.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories UUCP: att!ihlpb!gregg
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (03/11/89)
In article <6961@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: >@ if I'm using somebody else's key bindings, I'm totally screwed. Why is the >@ sequence 'dw' to delete a word "unfriendly"? If you are suffering from premature senility and have difficulty remembering such complex concepts as dw = delete word cw = change word it is a fairly trivial matter to have someone write a crib sheet for you.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/11/89)
In article <6961@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: > One huge adavantage of emacs is that it's documented online. The huge > disadvantage of vi is that it isn't. Only huge emacs' (GNUemacs, for example) are documented online. Some of us don't have >1 meg of RAM and 15 meg of disk to blow on an editor. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
flee@shire (Felix Lee) (03/13/89)
In article <3384@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Only huge emacs' (GNUemacs, for example) are documented online. JOVE (Johnathan's Own Version of Emacs) has online documentation, and isn't huge last time I checked. A full-featured Jove with Berkeley Unix support is slightly smaller than vi. The online doc file is about 80K. -- Felix Lee flee@shire.cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!shire!flee
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/14/89)
I really could care less whether someone uses vi or not. It's there business. I was just commenting on vi's sometime strange syntax. In article <1472@umbio.MIAMI.EDU>, aem@ibiza.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: > In <415@corpane.UUCP>, <sparks@corpane.UUCP> wrote: > >me >dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) >me >ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) >me >$ = end of file >me >A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! > > dd-delete line > dw-delete word > A-append at beginning of line ^^^^^? seems like it appends to the END of the current line to me. > a-append after current position > I-insert at beginning of line > i-insert at current position > $-end of line > ^-beginning of line > Just what was meant by the above? It's mostly the same thing I posted. > it's really all straight forward. ZZ is just a convenience rather than > :wq -write and quit But... why ZZ?!? why not ESC-X for eXit? My whole point wsa that vi uses some very cryptic commands. I am sure it seems very natural to someone who is an expert at it, but to a beginner it's very confusing. It's not at all 'straight forward'. What's really confusing is that some of the commands actually make sense and that really throws you for a loop. Just when you think you have got the commands down pat, boom! a weird one creeps in like ZZ. For example: dw means delete word. makes perfect sense. then you get dd for delete line instead of dl. But like some others have pointed out: My opinions are good for me, and I don't have the inclination nor the right to tell them that their preferred editor in right or wrong for them. I do however reserve the right to choose for myself. I am starting to get a real liking for word perfect (for unix) Most of it's commands are in the form of function keys. So a template really helps you remember the commands. You can edit more than one file at a time, and with macros you can set it up to save itself in unix compatable text file format with two keystrokes (F1/x for me) Matter of fact, I am using wp to write this. I Think I am starting to like it better than EDT. Give it a try if you have access to it. -- John Sparks // Amiga | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks \X/ UUCP | >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) (03/14/89)
In article <415@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > In article <2386@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, carlp@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: > > > > EDITOR WARS! > > As for "unfriendly", vi is hard to LEARN, not hard to USE. I assure you, I > > can be quite productive with vi - especially for quick jobs. > > I agree with you there. It is hard to learn. But once you master the wierd > commands, it's not so bad. As far as full screen editors go, it's my last > choice, but it's not real bad. I too, agree. For really quick jobs, however, I use cat > file :-). I have been using VI since it's inception at UC Berkeley around '76 (or was it '77). At the time, VI was nearly impossible for me to learn, but now that I am familiar with it, other editors are just as hard (I am somewhat dyslexic, and I love the xp capability) for me to use. My debugging cycle consists mostly of edit/compile/[edit to fix typo from last edit]. Most of the commands aren't weird, if you are familiar with ed (which was the only editor really available on UNIX at the time VI was written), and when you reallize that most (true, not all) of the single letter commands are mnemonic for something. I wouldn't really consider VI a screen editor, since commands only affect either cursor movement or action around where the cursor is (ignoring what is actually on the screen). > > > > > Sure, vi has some drawbacks; mainly it's outweighed by special-purpose > > solutions. BRIEF is quite good on the PC, and I tend to use Micro-EMACS > > for larger, prolonged, complex multi-file editing. But I can't compile on > > my PC with M-E loaded; and I don't want to start it up again to correct a > > semicolon - so I fall back on vi. And that tends to increase my reliance > > on vi: I use it all the time, so I know the keys and commands. I still > > have to look things up for EMACS if I want to do anything complicated. And > > if I'm using somebody else's key bindings, I'm totally screwed. Why is the > > sequence 'dw' to delete a word "unfriendly"? > > well, dw is not so bad, but let's look at some of the other commands: > > dd = delete line (why? why not dl?) > ZZ = end edit and save file (!!!!) > $ = end of file > A = insert begining at end of line !?!?! > > > sure there probably are reasons for such cryptic commands. For instance, > the dd for delete line is for convenience in deleting lines, you just have > to keep pressing the same key and watch the lines disapear. But that doesn't > make it any easier to learn or any more friendly. There are meanings to all of these. In trying to keep to single letter commands, dd was needed, because without going back to ex mode :d, there is no easy way to delete a line (whose mnemonics make sense). Commands in VI are basically <count><command><target> (3dw -- delete three words, 3dW -- use whitespace for determining words), and there isn't a line target (there are words, characters, and portions of screens, but no lines). ZZ was added because everyone hated typing ":wq<return>" after the autowrite set option was added. $ is the end of line like in ed. I think $ in the shell and other programs took this meaning because of VI, but I am not sure. $ as the end of file is also because of ed. Ideally, any ED edit script will work with VI. A can be thought of as (A)ppend at end of line, just like a can be thought of as (a)ppend after cursor. I can be thought of as (I)nsert at start of line, just like i can be thought of as (i)nsert before cursor. See, they make sense (well... sorta...). Some wierder ones: hjkl (for left, down, up, and right) correspond to the arrow keys on ADM3A terminals (which were what we had when VI was written). With bigger address spaces, arrow key (multiple character inputs) were added. I only really use a few commands most of the time: o -- open a new line a -- append 0 -- goto start of line $ -- goto end of line fx -- find s -- substitute xp -- swap characters (delete/put character) r -- replace hjkl -- see above. This set seems to be more than sufficient for about 70% of what I do. When I need more, I use more, but I don't have to. > > Personally I like EDT (yes I grew up on DEC). It's easy to use, the keypad > is designed to do most of the editing commands, like del-word, del-line, go > to end of line, go to beginning of line, cut, paste, etc. > Probably 80% of my work at this company involves systems where I use EDT as opposed to VI. (RT, RSX, VMS). I have only one big complaint about EDT, and that is the versions are different on all three operating systems. In actuality, I have 4 different editors to remember how to use. Furthermore, EDT is different based upon which type of terminal you have (we use VT-52 and VT-100 lookalikes). Other than this, I too like EDT. You must remember that VI was designed when terminals did not have keypads. > > I like the keypad approach rather than the single letter commands in some > editors, because you don't have to leave insert mode in order to do editing. > Using macros, you could probably define your keypad to do interesting things: :map ^V<numericpad-period> ma :map ^V<numericpad-3> d'a :map ^V<numericpad-1> ^V<return>0 :map ^V<numericpad-2> $ These will make the keys look something like the keys under EDT. If you don't like these things, you can redefine them to other things. The original VI, which ran on a PDP-11/70 under version 6 UNIX was rather sleek, without all the things that were added later (many of which we have gotten spoiled with), but again, remember the constraints you were limited to on that kind of architecture (Version 6 UNIX did not have overlays, and you were restricted originally to 64K for code+data 'cause it also originally ran on non-separate I/D machines), even EDT on the 11 uses overlays. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Gotwisner UUCP: ...!unisoft!peritek!dig Peritek Corporation ...!vsi1!peritek!dig 5550 Redwood Road Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: 1-415-531-6500
pechter@scr1.UUCP (03/17/89)
In article <560@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP writes: >These will make the keys look something like the keys under EDT. The most unfortunate thing about vi is it's two modes. Of course this is a personal choice, some person somewhere must like editors with modes. < Description of v6 Unix and early vi cut here> >restricted originally to 64K for code+data 'cause it also originally ran on >non-separate I/D machines), even EDT on the 11 uses overlays. Well Ked (kind of the father of EDT) runs on my PDT11/150 with only 62kb of memory available for the o/s and all tasks. It's got a learn mode and full VT100 and VT52 keypad support and undo. All in all it's a pretty nifty editor for a 64kb machine. -- Bill Pechter -- Home - 103 Governors Road, Lakewood, NJ 08701 (201)370-0709 Work -- Concurrent Computer Corp., 2 Crescent Pl, MS 172, Oceanport,NJ 07757 Phone -- (201)870-4780 Usenet . . . rutgers!pedsga!tsdiag!scr1!pechter ** Why is it called software when it's so hard to install. RTF what? **
dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) (03/25/89)
In article <302@scr1.UUCP>, pechter@scr1.UUCP writes: > In article <560@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP writes: > > < Description of v6 Unix and early vi cut here> > >restricted originally to 64K for code+data 'cause it also originally ran on > >non-separate I/D machines), even EDT on the 11 uses overlays. > > Well Ked (kind of the father of EDT) runs on my PDT11/150 with only 62kb of > memory available for the o/s and all tasks. There may only be 62Kb available, but most 11 operating systems rely VERY heavily on disk overlays. The versions of EDT and KED and K52 (which is a VT-52 version of KED running on RT-11 all are overlayed. Yes they fit in 62Kb, in fact, RT-11FB limits you to something like 40Kb (more or less, depending upon what handlers you have loaded), and my guess is that KED will run in less than 32KB, but it is overlayed. UNIX did not support overlays at the time VI was written. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Gotwisner UUCP: ...!unisoft!peritek!dig Peritek Corporation ...!vsi1!peritek!dig 5550 Redwood Road Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: 1-415-531-6500