pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen) (05/24/89)
I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to get a good VI editor for the PC? Thanks! - Paul
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (05/24/89)
>I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to >get a good VI editor for the PC? This comes up about every two or three weeks. The answer is still the same. Mortice Kern Systems 35 King Stree North Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2J 2W9 519-884-2251 For about $150, you get vi, awk, ksh, and a couple of dozen other goodies. More useful software for less money than anything else that's around. Earl H. Kinmonth History Department University of California, Davis Davis, California 95616 916-752-1636 (2300-0800 PDT for FAX) 916-752-0776 (secretary) ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck (email) cc-dnet.ucdavis.edu [128.120.2.251] (request ucdked, login as guest)
brown@astroatc.UUCP (Vidiot) (05/24/89)
In article <24788@beta.lanl.gov> pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen) writes:
<I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to
<get a good VI editor for the PC?
MKS Toolkit's VI.
--
harvard\ att!nicmad\
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!brown
rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/
ARPA/INTERNET: brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.eduhollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) (05/25/89)
From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): > I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to > get a good VI editor for the PC? ^^^^ Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? They are so much better than VI, that you will be surprised how you lived with VI for so long. VI was hot shit when yoiu could only guarantee a serial terminal with alphabet and control keys, but in these days of extended keyboards and direct video access on the PC, using VI is a bit wierd. Dion Hollenbeck (619) 455-5590 x2814 Megatek Corporation, 9645 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121 seismo!s3sun!megatek!hollen ames!scubed/
schanck@harmonica.cis.ohio-state.edu (Christopher Schanck) (05/25/89)
In article <24890@beta.lanl.gov> pt@beta.UUCP (Paul A. Thiessen) writes: >Actually, the reason I want it is beacuse I like to have a *small* editor >that is memory resident and comes up quickly on my 4.77 MHz PC. I don't want >to wait for WordPerfect to load up every time I want to do a quick edit on If you want small and fast, try QEdit version 2.07. It's shareware package, 48k in size, handles files up to memory, windows, and the display is the fastest I have ever seen (and I have a 4.77mhz machine too, though I work on a 386 at times). It is eminently reconfigurable, good docs, and real small. I can relate to the need for a small editor; we XT types with our pokey processors and 80ms drives appreciate dense code like nobody else, excepting people who still use floppies. Chris -=- So you see, I don't feel this is all really worth a .sig! Christopher Schanck (schanck@cis.ohio-state.edu)
brown@astroatc.UUCP (Vidiot) (05/25/89)
In article <554@megatek.UUCP> hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes:
<From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen):
<> I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to
<> get a good VI editor for the PC?
< ^^^^
<
<Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the
<time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? They are so
<much better than VI, that you will be surprised how you lived with
<VI for so long. VI was hot shit when yoiu could only guarantee a
<serial terminal with alphabet and control keys, but in these days of
<extended keyboards and direct video access on the PC, using VI is a
<bit wierd.
That may be true, but when one uses VI on the UNIX machine at work, it is
just a little easier, mentally, to use the same editor on my 386 PC. I know
so many different programs now, that every little bit of commonality is a plus.
--
harvard\ att!nicmad\
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!brown
rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/
ARPA/INTERNET: brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edudts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) (05/25/89)
In article <554@megatek.UUCP> hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes: >From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): >> I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to >> get a good VI editor for the PC? > ^^^^ > >Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the >time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? Please note that Dion's comments are only one person's opinion (certainly not mine). I've tried any number of different editors, but swear by vi to this day. (I also refuse to get involved in a religious war on this topic. Suffice it to say that different people like different editors, okay?) Now that that's said, I can heartily endorse MKS's vi. I actually like it a bit more than the real vi on my Sys V machine... ;') -- char *david_sandberg() { return ( dts@quad.uucp || uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts ); }
malpass@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Don Malpass) (05/25/89)
In article <554@megatek.UUCP> hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes: >Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic..... Whereas YOUR statement is simply moronic. Why can't religious issues like PERSONAL PREFERENCES about editors be eliminated from this forum. It's all been said before - too often. Flame all you want - all msgs will have expired before I return from vacation. -- Don Malpass [malpass@LL-vlsi.arpa], [gandalf mailbox dead for now] You know you're making progress when you get back to where you were three weeks ago. 5/89 & 6/89
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (05/25/89)
>Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the >time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? They are so One very good reason is learning curve. A second is efficiency. If you frequently switch between **IX and MessyDOS, having as little different, even if it is not the last word in imagined (in)convenience, is worth something. >extended keyboards and direct video access on the PC, using VI is a >bit wierd. Studies show that for experienced touch typists, keys beyond the standard QWERTY layout and inconvenient and underutilized. Functions keys and extended keyboards are of more use to hunters and peckers.
jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall) (05/26/89)
In article <554@megatek.UUCP> hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes: >From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): >> I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to >> get a good VI editor for the PC? > ^^^^ >Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the >time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? They are so >much better than VI, that you will be surprised how you lived with >VI for so long. VI was hot shit when yoiu could only guarantee a >serial terminal with alphabet and control keys, [stuff deleted] > Dion Hollenbeck (619) 455-5590 x2814 > Megatek Corporation, 9645 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121 There are other considerations. I have a REAL editor. The bloody thing takes about 45 seconds to load (from a hard drive) and get itself initialized. If I want to change one word in a small file, it takes much longer to pull up the editor than it does to make the change. Whereas VI loads in about five seconds and provides enough functionality to make small changes like so. Save REAL editors for REAL uses, like writing papers. As a quick-and-dirty editor for small changes, VI still has a place on my drive. -- James W. Birdsall jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU jwbirdsa@pucc.BITNET ...allegra!princeton!phoenix!jwbirdsa Compu$erve: 71261,1731 "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin
clark@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Robert P. Clark) (05/26/89)
In <554@megatek.UUCP>, hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes: >From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): >> I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to >> get a good VI editor for the PC? > ^^^^ > >Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the >time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? They are so >much better than VI, that you will be surprised how you lived with >VI for so long. VI was hot shit when yoiu could only guarantee a >serial terminal with alphabet and control keys, but in these days of >extended keyboards and direct video access on the PC, using VI is a >bit wierd. Its really disappointing to see vi put down by the uneducated. I think that the confusion stems from the fact that people fail to realize that vi is an editor, not a word processor. Vi is designed to provide very powerful editing capabilities with a minimum of keystrokes (i.e. you can delete from the cursor to the next period by just typing dt.). Vi supports regular expressions. If you've passed your automata theory class, you would know the incredible power that this presents to the user. You basically have an entire user-definable language at your disposal with which to do your editing. Bob Clark clark@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Never underestimate the bandwidth of ~ ~ a station wagon - Andrew Tannenbaum ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, I know the whole quote, but it sounds better this way.
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (05/26/89)
There is a shareware implementation for vi under DOS. It was written using
the small memory model and Turbo C. This directly implies that you can not
edit files > 64K. I believe Simtel20 has it up on their MS-DOS archives. If
you don't have ftp access, leave me mail and I'll send it to you as a
uuencoded .ZIP file. I use Unix quite often, more so than I use DOS nowadays
and going back to Wordstar (compatable) editors is a pain. I move around very
quickly in vi and when I got wind that there was a shareware/PD implementation
of it, I jumped at the opportunity to obtain it. Just keep it mind that this
version of vi is a subset, but it isn't missing much.
JCA
UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil
INET: jca@pnet01.cts.comhollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) (05/26/89)
From article <24890@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): > In article <554@megatek.UUCP> hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes: >>From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): >>> I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to >>> get a good VI editor for the PC? >> ^^^^ >> >>Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. Why not take the >>time to learn a REAL editor on which is made for the PC? They are so >>much better than VI, that you will be surprised how you lived with >>VI for so long. > > Actually, the reason I want it is beacuse I like to have a *small* editor > that is memory resident and comes up quickly on my 4.77 MHz PC. I don't want > to wait for WordPerfect to load up every time I want to do a quick edit on > some little file. And I use VI at work, so I thought something similar would > be convenient. > I appreciate your interest in my word processing welfare, but please > remember that sometimes there may be valid logic behind a statement or request > that may not be immediately obvious to *you*. And though no offense was taken, > your reply seems to imply that I am unaware of the existence of "good" word > processors or the capability of the PC I've owned for 5 years. I like to think > I'm a bit more "with-it" than that! > > - Paul Sorry if I sounded a bit caustic, but I am continually needing to defend myself in a UNIX environment for using a full-featured editor (Emacs) and I automatically treat anyone espousing VI and "the enemy". I should not have lumped you in that category without more information. I can give two suggestions for fast and small editors, both of which I use(d) on my PC at home. My first editor was Personal Editor for the IBM version 1.0. I believe that this is available at version 2.0. It has windows, unlimited file size and customizable key set-ups. Since then, I have discovered Multi-Edit (ME) which blows the doors off any editor I have ever seen (I am not talking about word processors or publishing packages, but programming editors which may or may not have some documentation capabilities). It is about 40k, has multiwindowing, mouse or function-key driven menues, configurable key bindings and the most outrageously good and complete macro language you could ever want. It is cheap and has excellent support from the manufacturer. Unfortunately, I have it at home, not here at work, so I cannot tell you who makes it. If you are interested in pursuing it, I can look up the information and mail it to you. One of the 'icing on the cake' features is language-specific indentation, commenting and templates. A template is a macro that automatically constructs a logic template for you. Type "i" and then press ALT-I and magically, you have an 'if-then-else' construct on the screen with your cursor inside the first parentheses. Since these are macros, you can change them to suit your individual needs. These templates are language specific. You can go in a 'file-extension' menu and configure what file extensions get what language flavor and even tell it what the compile command for that language. Oh, BTW, you can compile from within the editor and it will put you in the edited file at the first error and allow you to find each of the successive errors with a single key-combination. You can also escape to DOS, format disks, do directory stuff and even do some elementary word-processing/formatting and printing from it. Dion Hollenbeck (619) 455-5590 x2814 Megatek Corporation, 9645 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121 seismo!s3sun!megatek!hollen ames!scubed/
hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) (05/26/89)
From article <1940@astroatc.UUCP>, by brown@astroatc.UUCP (Vidiot): > In article <554@megatek.UUCP> hollen@eta.megatek.uucp (Dion Hollenbeck) writes: > <From article <24788@beta.lanl.gov>, by pt@beta.lanl.gov (Paul A. Thiessen): > <> I know it has been mentioned before, but can someone please tell me where to > <> get a good VI editor for the PC? > < ^^^^ > <Good editor and VI in the same breath are oxymoronic. ..... > > That may be true, but when one uses VI on the UNIX machine at work, it is > just a little easier, mentally, to use the same editor on my 386 PC. I know > so many different programs now, that every little bit of commonality is a plus. I use Emacs and VI on UNIX and EVE on VAX/VMS at work. At home, I use ME as my primary programming editor, sometimes IBM Personal Editor on my consulting clients computers, and WordPerfect for word-processing needs. I don't find any more hassle in moving from one editor to another than I do in programming in C, FORTRAN, 80186 assembly and VAX11 assembly all in one day. Maybe I am unusual in that I move from one computing environment to another constantly throughout the day and have no trouble with the context shift. I don't think of myself as anything unusual and attribute my fellow computer users as being on a par. Dion Hollenbeck (619) 455-5590 x2814 Megatek Corporation, 9645 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121 seismo!s3sun!megatek!hollen ames!scubed/
vojta@spam.berkeley.edu (Paul Vojta) (05/27/89)
In article <4253@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >There is a shareware implementation for vi under DOS. It was written using >the small memory model and Turbo C. This directly implies that you can not >edit files > 64K. I believe Simtel20 has it up on their MS-DOS archives. ... It is available via anonymous ftp from: wsmr-simtel20.army.mil [26.2.0.74] file pd1:<msdos.editor>vi-19a.arc, or grape.ecs.clarkson.edu [128.153.13.196] file /c/bin1/pv_vi109.arc Remember to set "tenex" mode before transferring. And, it's free software, not shareware. --Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu