From xemacs-m  Tue Jun 17 23:46:32 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA17486
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:46:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcukp20994; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <QQcukp20994.199706180446@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Version Non-control (was Re: Ebola vaccines)
In-Reply-To: <199706180404.VAA10608@piglet.splode.com>
References: <199706112130.RAA27486@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
	<864tb4es2d.fsf@kramer.in.aventail.com>
	<199706112300.TAA27566@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
	<m2wwo03f9u.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199706121515.LAA20240@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
	<199706121719.NAA28093@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
	<kig4tb32hv7.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<hniksic@srce.hr>
	<199706180404.VAA10608@piglet.splode.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under 20.3 "Oslo" XEmacs Lucid (beta7)
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Noah Friedman writes:
 > >> I've converted everyone to XEmacs and even the one or two diehard
 > >> FSFers are now happily XEmacing (AFAICT).
 > >
 > >The same goes for me.  In fact, the only thing that FSF does real
 > >better currently (from a user's perspective) are TTY redisplay
 > >optimizations.  For users with slow TTY-s, XEmacs is still a dubious
 > >solution.
 > 
 > That's exactly right.  That is the *only* thing holding me back from total
 > conversion to XEmacs.  That slowness overrides even the other vastly
 > superior things about XEmacs' tty handling (e.g. faces support,
 > simultaneous X/tty device support, etc).  I can live without those fancier
 > things because I've done so for almost 8 years anyway.  But I can't
 > tolerate redisplay that's even slower than vi.

Some things aren't worth fixing.  I'm pretty sure that you're not
going to be able to put a good optimized TTY display engine into
XEmacs in under a week, full-time.  Do you really have an old
terminal that you love this much?  I've got a couple of VT102's
(top speed without flow control probably 4800 baud) stuffed in a
closet.  I think of them fondly from time to time.  But I'm not
_that_ fond of them.

