jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (01/26/91)
In article <1991Jan24.014652.14960@kessner.denver.co.us> kessner!david@csn.org (David D. Kessner) writes: >Geez. 9 meg for UNIX? 8 is bare minimum-- I have 12 here on my i386. Does >this limit exist on the A3000? Look. 680x0 UNIX does not need a bazillion megs of RAM, and I would guess that 386 unix {dosen't,wouldn't} either, if it {is,was} ported correctly. There are thousands of 3b1's and 7300's running round, none with over 3.5Mb of RAM (unless there's a new hardware hack I don't know about :-). (I used to develop banking software on them, fyi.) The kernal on the 3b1 I had was around 300K... There's no reason the Amiga UNIX should need more than a few megs, as long as you don't run some sort of windowing system (other than a bunch of virtual ascii terminals). -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 Motorola skates on Intel's head!
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (01/26/91)
In article <1991Jan26.002917.21545@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >There's no reason the Amiga UNIX should need more than a few megs, as long >as you don't run some sort of windowing system (other than a bunch of >virtual ascii terminals). >J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Ah. you hit on the problem. Anyone who runs UNIX on a 386 or A3000 WITHOUT a windowing system is crazy. Here are a few RAM sizes to take into consideration: My ESIX (System V 3.2.2) kernal is 770K It takes 2 meg just to boot, after all the dameons,mail and other network drivers are loaded. Bring up X Windows with MOTIF, open Xclock, Xbiff, and three Xterms and your total RAM useage is just under 8 meg. (one user!) The average X-program is one meg of executable. GCC's executeable is about 1.8 meg. GNU Chess is about 1.5 meg. When compiling, GCC takes up a meg of RAM just for DATA. Now, sure, UNIX has virtual memory-- but it is not the Holy Grail. It provides a nice 'catch' for when you do run out of RAM. It also provides a way of telling you when it has done so-- it starts swapping to disk every time you switch windows! If I had about 4 average users, and no X-Windows, then 4 meg of RAM would probably work fine. But I have 2 heavy duty users, X-windows, and Netnews. Also. How can you not run X-Windows on an Amiga/UNIX? It's not like your console's native mode isn't ggraphical windows or something... :)' - David David Kessner - kessner!david@csn.org | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | This space for rent. This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! | -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | This space for rent. This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! |
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (01/27/91)
In article <1991Jan26.054948.715@kessner.denver.co.us> kessner!david@csn.org (David D. Kessner) writes: > My ESIX (System V 3.2.2) kernal is 770K > It takes 2 meg just to boot, after all the dameons,mail and other > network drivers are loaded. > Bring up X Windows with MOTIF, open Xclock, Xbiff, and three Xterms > and your total RAM useage is just under 8 meg. (one user!) > The average X-program is one meg of executable. Don't forget that SysVR4 has shared libraries. I'm told that X is ok in 4 meg, Open Look in 8 meg. >Also. How can you not run X-Windows on an Amiga/UNIX? It's not like your >console's native mode isn't ggraphical windows or something... :)' Amiga Unix also has N virtual terminals available by hitting the function keys (even if you have X up). That helps reduce the amount you need to load X down, and makes it far more useful than most Unix boxes when running without a windowing system. -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (01/27/91)
In article <18142@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > Don't forget that SysVR4 has shared libraries. I'm told that X >is ok in 4 meg, Open Look in 8 meg. Most SysV r3.2's have shared libraries. I am running SysVr3.2.2 and it has them. I can see how you can use X in four meg, but it will start swapping heavily if you try doing something useful. MOTIF is similar in function to Open Look, and also works in 8 meg. > Amiga Unix also has N virtual terminals available by hitting the >function keys (even if you have X up). That helps reduce the amount you >need to load X down, and makes it far more useful than most Unix boxes >when running without a windowing system. My verson of UNIX also has these, I think it is limited to eight virtual terminals. You get to these by pressing the ALT-Function Key. You cannot get to these if you are using X, however. (but as to why you would want to do this I don't know) I should also point out that the scroll speed of my console (outside of X) is increadible! You can 'cat' a 80K text file in about 5 seconds. But I'd rather have my X. Right now I have 12 meg, which is good. I can run just about anything without having it start swapping-- where 8 meg was just 'not quite right' (this is while running under MOTIF). And since I can only upgrade 4 meg at a time... I actually saw the A3000UX at COMDEX, running the new 34010 board and X. It was OK-- but not spectacular. However, the price is good. I'd rather go for one of those new SPARC clones. They cost more, but their performance is many times more than the A3000UX, and a i386 for that matter. Now if C= would come out with a 68040 based UNIX box... yea, that's the ticket... - David K -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | This space for rent. This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! |
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (01/28/91)
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >In article <1991Jan26.002917.21545@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >>There's no reason the Amiga UNIX should need more than a few megs, as long >>as you don't run some sort of windowing system (other than a bunch of >>virtual ascii terminals). >>J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU >Ah. you hit on the problem. Anyone who runs UNIX on a 386 or A3000 WITHOUT >a windowing system is crazy. you are welcome to send me $2000 so i can purchase a good graphics card/monitor for my 386. > GCC's executeable is about 1.8 meg. sounds like you compiled it with -g and didn't strip it. my gcc-cc1 is 477KB. > When compiling, GCC takes up a meg of RAM just for DATA. do a 'make bigtest' on the flex source sometime, makes for a REALLY big process :-) >Now, sure, UNIX has virtual memory-- but it is not the Holy Grail. It provides >a nice 'catch' for when you do run out of RAM. It also provides a way of >telling you when it has done so-- it starts swapping to disk every time you >switch windows! i had much fun with some dozen diskless sun-3's running X in 4MB... they swapped over the net so heavy that it took over 10 seconds to get the root menu :-) -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (01/28/91)
In article <1991Jan27.183019.18321@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes: > When compiling, GCC takes up a meg of RAM just for DATA. do a 'make bigtest' on the flex source sometime, makes for a REALLY big process :-) >Now, sure, UNIX has virtual memory-- but it is not the Holy Grail. It provides >a nice 'catch' for when you do run out of RAM. It also provides a way of >telling you when it has done so-- it starts swapping to disk every time you >switch windows! Actually, it's worse than you might think - most GNU utilities make much use of virtual memory. Before complaining, though, remember that, in general, the more speed/space efficient a program, the harder it is to write, and the more expensive it becomes. GNU stuff is (nearly) free so don't expect it to be the fastest/smallest thing on the block. On the other hand, the GNU compiler does alot more than most PC compilers. Comparing with the IBM PC world (I'm sorry, I'm not so familiar with AmigaDOS compilers), gcc would have to be compared with Microsoft's command-line compiler, and even then the comparison is hardly valid. gcc is fairly good at optimization on the 680x0 architecture (sp?). It's also not designed to be an interactive compiler, which means they didn't have to worry so much about speed/space. Of course, this doesn't me I wouldn't like a quick&dirty, single-pass version of gcc. I work on NeXTs, which use exclusively gcc as their compiler - /bin/cc _is_ gcc, in fact. It's bad enough for me that I log into our file server and make/compile there, so that I need not swap out every other process on my local machine (8M only, alas). I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, though. With memory at $35/Meg, it would be wise to check in and see just how much 4M adds to your machine's functionality (check out a computer store or friend's machine, for instance). -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad <I still speak for nobody> "Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ." "Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by Richard Simmons . . ."
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (01/28/91)
In article <1991Jan27.183019.18321@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes: >you are welcome to send me $2000 so i can purchase a good graphics card/monitor >for my 386. Hey, If I had $2000, I get a good graphics card and monitor for my 386! Have you ever ran X on a standard VGA? 640x480x16? Tis a shame, since my VGA card supports 800x600x256, but my X drivers don;t support my card. The standard A3000 isn't much better. It supports some better resolutions, but nothing like 1024x768x256-- the resolution I am starting to think should be minimum for X workstations. Now that's 768K of display memory, which makes a total of 4 meg of RAM almost unuseable for real work. >> GCC's executeable is about 1.8 meg. >sounds like you compiled it with -g and didn't strip it. >my gcc-cc1 is 477KB. Well. I didn't see the -g option, but I did strip it. What's the -g option? You always wanted to discuss UNIX, GNU, X-Windows, and i386's on the Amiga news group... David Kessner -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | This space for rent. This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! |
amiga@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Paul) (01/29/91)
The Amiga 3000 is capable of accessing 1.7 Gigabytes!!!! Not a limit you will excede soon. -- "The problem with the Eunuch's Operating System is that it has no balls!" - John Richter Amiga@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu .....Paul......
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (01/29/91)
scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >In article <1991Jan27.183019.18321@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> I wrote: > > When compiling, GCC takes up a meg of RAM just for DATA. > do a 'make bigtest' on the flex source sometime, makes for a REALLY > big process :-) >Actually, it's worse than you might think - most GNU utilities make >much use of virtual memory. Before complaining, though, remember that, >in general, the more speed/space efficient a program, the harder it is >to write, and the more expensive it becomes. GNU stuff is (nearly) >free so don't expect it to be the fastest/smallest thing on the block. i don't complain, i use gcc, i love it,.... my point was: make bigtest eventually wants to compile a single .c file that's 600KB in size. since i killed it because of heavy thrashing, i only know the size for suns: total process size about 14MB, working set about 4MB :-) even if you have 16MB ram this is a hard one to swallow. i think it shows what virtual memory can give you, and what it can't give you. >I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, though. With memory at >$35/Meg, it would be wise to check in and see just how much 4M >adds to your machine's functionality (check out a computer store >or friend's machine, for instance). moving from 8 to 12MB really makes for a much better machine, especially if you run X and IP. -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (01/29/91)
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >In article <1991Jan27.183019.18321@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes: >>you are welcome to send me $2000 so i can purchase a good graphics card/monitor >>for my 386. >Hey, If I had $2000, I get a good graphics card and monitor for my 386! Have >you ever ran X on a standard VGA? 640x480x16? Tis a shame, since my VGA card >supports 800x600x256, but my X drivers don;t support my card. well, get the x11r4 server source that Mr Roell made available. than you won't depend on your vendor and get a faster/newer X too. > The standard >A3000 isn't much better. It supports some better resolutions, but nothing like >1024x768x256-- the resolution I am starting to think should be minimum for >X workstations. agreed, that's minimum. > Now that's 768K of display memory, which makes a total of 4 >meg of RAM almost unuseable for real work. huh? that ram is on the vga card, and it won't make any 4MB's unuseable. >>> GCC's executeable is about 1.8 meg. >>sounds like you compiled it with -g and didn't strip it. >>my gcc-cc1 is 477KB. >Well. I didn't see the -g option, but I did strip it. What's the -g option? >You always wanted to discuss UNIX, GNU, X-Windows, and i386's on the Amiga >news group... -g puts debugging info into the binary, so a debugger can tell which function is in what .c-file etc pepe. you'd better recompile gcc *without* -g if you have less than 12MB ram. especially programs with gazillions of symbols like gcc tend to get huge if compiled with -g. btw: coff machines can use cprs(1) to further reduce binary sizes. -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
mr3@ukc.ac.uk (M.Rizzo) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.052517.909@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.UUCP (David D. Kessner) writes: >In article <1991Jan27.183019.18321@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes: >>> GCC's executeable is about 1.8 meg. >>sounds like you compiled it with -g and didn't strip it. >>my gcc-cc1 is 477KB. > >Well. I didn't see the -g option, but I did strip it. What's the -g option? >You always wanted to discuss UNIX, GNU, X-Windows, and i386's on the Amiga >news group... The -g option is for debugging - it causes the compiler to generate extra info in the object code for use by a debugger such as gdb (GNU debugger). Part of the reason for the large difference in code could be due to the processor. I would expect the code for a RISC processor such as the SPARC to be much larger than the 680x0 equivalent. Here the size of gcc-cc1 is about 1.6 meg (compiled with -g on a SUN SPARC). > David Kessner Mike Rizzo
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan29.020030.894@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes: >> Now that's 768K of display memory, which makes a total of 4 >>meg of RAM almost unuseable for real work. >huh? that ram is on the vga card, and it won't make any 4MB's unuseable. Some systems store parts of their 'hidden' windows in off-screen memory. It is not only in-efficent to store this in the unused VGA RAM (too slow), but there probably isnt room anyway. However, why anyone would run 1024x768x256 from a VGA card is beyone me (I know, that IS what I implied in the message). But, just to take a look at two other possibilities... You could use a system like the Amiga where video ram and system ram are just about the same thing (well, that which resides under one meg is-- or is it two meg of chip ram now?) In this case, the total amount of RAM reported includes both, rather than a PC/VGA combination that does not usually include the size of the video ram in it's total RAM size. There is also the case where you have a graphic CPU in the machine, like the 34010 or 34020. If you don't have at least two meg for one of these then... You get the picture. There is alwaus those systems that call some 'redraw' code, rather than using the backing store method-- this confuses the whole issue. I suppose the bottom line is not, "What is the minimum anout of RAM needed?" but rather, "How much can I afford?" (grin;)' - David K -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | This space for rent. This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! |
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/30/91)
In article <43339@ut-emx.uucp> amiga@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Paul) writes: >The Amiga 3000 is capable of accessing 1.7 Gigabytes!!!! Not a limit you will >excede soon. More practically speaking, you get 18MB for the price of the memory chips, since that's what fits on the motherboard. You never need to throw any away if you're smart about expanding any C= base configuration. On top of that, you can add 8MB of Zorro II memory if you want it, but it's very slow in comparison. Theoretically, you can have 128MB of memory in the coprocessor slot area and 1.75GB of memory in the Zorro III space, but that's not something you're likely to find on store shelves tomorrow at lunch time. I cranked out a 32MB memory board for Zorro III in about a week, as part of an article for last Spring's DevCon in Atlanta. Not the best design in the world, and with 80ns DRAM it's roughly 30% slower than normal burst-mode A3000 motherboard memory. Since I had four of there boards built, it is technically possible today to expand one A3000 to 146MB of real memory, if you aren't concerned about room for Ethernet or TIGA display boards. More practically speaking, a commercial version of this board would probably be a somewhat better design, and could possibly manage 48MB-64MB of DRAM, depending on how good the layout people are (eg, 64MB is a _tight_ squeeze for ZIP RAM and Zorro III bus interface, not to mention the DRAM controller). Using the now-sampling 16Mbit chips, rather than the 4Mbit chips my board did, you could put 192MB-256MB on a single board, with some effort. And it would cost a fortune. Of course, today, off the dealer's shelf, you can get 18MB plus that additional 8MB of 16 bit RAM into your A3000. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (01/30/91)
>Hey, If I had $2000, I get a good graphics card and monitor for my 386! Have >you ever ran X on a standard VGA? 640x480x16? Tis a shame, since my VGA card >supports 800x600x256, but my X drivers don;t support my card. The standard >A3000 isn't much better. It supports some better resolutions, but nothing like >1024x768x256-- the resolution I am starting to think should be minimum for > Ahem. If we're talking about graphics cards anyway, the Lowell board for the A3000 supports 1024x1024x256 at last accounting... -- // / Thom Cleland / It is easier / // / tcleland@ucsd.edu / to get forgiveness / \X/ / ASOCC * Amiga Users' Group at UCSD / than permission... / \____________________________________\____________________/
aoe@hpfcso.HP.COM (Alexander Elkins) (02/02/91)
> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <43339@ut-emx.uucp> amiga@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Paul) writes: >>The Amiga 3000 is capable of accessing 1.7 Gigabytes!!!! Not a limit you will >>excede soon. > >More practically speaking, you get 18MB for the price of the memory chips, >since that's what fits on the motherboard. ... [ stuff deleted ] > ... Using the > now-sampling 16Mbit chips, rather than the 4Mbit chips my board did, you could > put 192MB-256MB on a single board, with some effort. And it would cost a > fortune. Would it be possible to use those 16Mbit chips ZIP RAM chips in the mother board sockets of an A3000? Just dream'n I guess ... - Alexander Elkins (aoe@hpfiaoe.fc.hp.com)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (02/06/91)
In article <10870003@hpfcso.HP.COM> aoe@hpfcso.HP.COM (Alexander Elkins) writes: >Would it be possible to use those 16Mbit chips ZIP RAM chips in the mother >board sockets of an A3000? Just dream'n I guess ... What would you do with 64MB on the motherboard, anyway. While I don't have a data sheet handy, I'm certain the 16MB part has a different pinout. The 1MB part had one spare address pin, which is used in the 4MB part. So the 16MB part will be at least a 22 pin ZIP, possibly more pins if they've decided to add more expansion capability or other goodies. > - Alexander Elkins (aoe@hpfiaoe.fc.hp.com) -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (02/08/91)
In article <18613@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >What would you do with 64MB on the motherboard, anyway. While I don't have >a data sheet handy, I'm certain the 16MB part has a different pinout. The >1MB part had one spare address pin, which is used in the 4MB part. So the >16MB part will be at least a 22 pin ZIP, possibly more pins if they've >decided to add more expansion capability or other goodies. Also, I suspect 16M parts are going to be 2Mx8 or 1Mx16, so you don't have to expand in 16M increments (they AREN'T going to be cheap). -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
gsarff@meph.UUCP (Gary Sarff) (02/13/91)
In article <18613@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <10870003@hpfcso.HP.COM> aoe@hpfcso.HP.COM (Alexander Elkins) writes: > >>Would it be possible to use those 16Mbit chips ZIP RAM chips in the mother >>board sockets of an A3000? Just dream'n I guess ... > >What would you do with 64MB on the motherboard, anyway. A hardware person asks this? For shame dave!. Haven't I seen you in comp.arch, (or maybe it was randall jessup), the newsgroup that has real people saying things like, "I've only got 256Meg of ram in my Apollo workstation and I can't do a thing with it.", or someone claiming that the speed of an intel 486 was barely tolerable to him for editing text? I insert 8-), but I don't think the original posters did. I've got a silicon graphics machine, and the editor, emacs is bigger than the entire kernel, it's a pig and takes forever to start up, and I just want to edit a tiny 1K text file. 8-(. I end up using "ed" the line editor a lot. 8-) But seriously, I would think that stuffing Sys Vr4 and X-windows and all those neat things that you have on the 3000UX and then having a fairly small memory limit (compared I realize to more expensive workstations), but still fairly small, may make a bit of a pig's breakfast of it someday. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Do memory page swapping to floppies" , I said, "yes we can do that, but you haven't lived until you see our machine do swapping over a 1200 Baud modem line, and keep on ticking." ..uplherc!wicat!sarek!gsarff
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (02/19/91)
>In article <18613@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>What would you do with 64MB on the motherboard, anyway. In article <00078@meph.UUCP> gsarff@meph.UUCP writes: >A hardware person asks this? For shame dave! Haven't I seen you in >comp.arch, (or maybe it was randall jessup), the newsgroup that has real >people saying things like, "I've only got 256Meg of ram in my Apollo >workstation and I can't do a thing with it." I think Dave was talking about having the RAM on the *motherboard* as opposed to an expansion slot card. After all, CBM did design the A3000 to accept up to 1.7 GB RAM! Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
perley@trub (Donald P Perley) (02/21/91)
In article <00078@meph.UUCP>, gsarff@meph (Gary Sarff) writes: >In article <18613@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <10870003@hpfcso.HP.COM> aoe@hpfcso.HP.COM (Alexander Elkins) writes: > I've got a silicon graphics >machine, and the editor, emacs is bigger than the entire kernel, it's a pig >and takes forever to start up, and I just want to edit a tiny 1K text file. >8-(. I end up using "ed" the line editor a lot. 8-) This is a little off track, but maybe you should try "mg" (formerly MicroGnu emacs). It runs 70-140 kbytes (executable file size) depending on the compile time options and starts in about 1/10 the time of gnuemacs (on a sun-3/60). I use it whenever I want a quick startup and don't need the extra capability of the full blown gnu. -don perley -- perley@trub.crd.ge.com