home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!wupost!psuvax1!ward
- From: ward@math.psu.edu (Brian Ward)
- Newsgroups: comp.editors
- Subject: Re: Why I love VI
- Message-ID: <BtBBrL.LI7@cs.psu.edu>
- Date: 21 Aug 92 02:47:44 GMT
- References: <sjreeves.920819174130@fourier.ee.eng.auburn.edu> <Bt9CEw.K42@cs.psu.edu> <STI.92Aug20232719@kuuppa.cs.hut.fi>
- Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Organization: The Society for Green Traffic Lights
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lagrange.math.psu.edu
-
- In article <STI.92Aug20232719@kuuppa.cs.hut.fi> Sami.Tikka@hut.fi writes:
- |> that would probably, well, not probably, definitely, make it too slow.
- |
- |Yes it probably would but that's not all vi's fault.
-
- (did i hint at vi being the problem?)
-
- |But there are a lot of faster GUIs out there. [stuff] MacIntoshes have a
- |lean-and-mean window system too.
-
- I tend to disagree with "lean-and-mean" being associated with a Mac, but if
- you want a really quick windowing system, try out the Amiga's. It's fast,
- but... not very portable or networkable.
-
- I have a cute little windowing system for my MassComp 5450 sitting around
- here somewhere. It's not very featureful, but it's pretty fast.
-
- |Why is X so big and slow?!?!?
-
- bitmaps, for one. X is bitmap based. but remember - X has to be portable
- and networkable. But wait, it gets better :) A minimally-written X server
- would be the slowest, because it would not know much about the framebuffer
- that it is using. On Suns, for example, there is a tremendous difference
- between the R4 and R5 servers on machines with a GX board, because the
- server in R5 actually uses some of the GX's prime features.
-
- but that's not the only reason X is so big. and slow.
-