From xemacs-m  Wed Jun 18 05:35:22 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA19453
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 05:35:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id MAA05831; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:35:17 +0200 (MET DST)
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Version Non-control (was Re: Ebola vaccines)
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> <QQcukp20994.199706180446@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 18 Jun 1997 12:35:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: Kyle Jones's message of Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kigu3iwkxln.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 41
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.3(beta7)

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:

>  > 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.

But why bother with TTY support at all, then?  Redisplay optimizations 
are quite basic thing.  If we don't consider them worth fixing, it is
questionnable how much we care about TTY-s in general.

> 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.

Up to a few months ago, I was using XEmacs on a 9600 terminal for a
year.  It was incredibly slow, but I didn't mind it very much.

However, other new users are hardly as masochistic as I am.  Many of
them get acquainted with Unix through the Unix terminals on the
university.  If they find XEmacs slow and cumbersome, they will not be 
likely to use it later.

On the other hand, if they grow like XEmacs on TTY-s (as I did), they
will likely install it on their Linuxes at home.

With the current TTY redisplay quality, few people will like XEmacs on 
TTY-s.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Idle RAM is the Devil's playground.

