Re: tlug: Re: Emacs 20

[Krister Joas <joask@example.com>]

Stephen J Turnbull writes:

> Also, I don't know how well XEmacs in an xterm compares to FSFmacs
> in a frame in terms of capabilities, but that's much faster than
> XEmacs in a frame due to much less garbage collection.  Most of the
> beta testers for XEmacs believe that 20.x without Mule is much
> faster than 19.x (which never had Mule), and some feel 20.x without
> Mule is somewhat faster than XEmacs 19.34.  (It's also faster than
> FSF Emacs 20, but that's not a fair comparison because of the Mule
> overhead.)

This (X)Emacs version game is confusing as it is, without mixing
everything up.  Did you mean Emacs 19.34 or XEmacs 19.1[45] in the
last sentence?  Not that I really want to know.  The only thing I care
about right know is that Emacs works better than XEmacs for me.  I had
switched to XEmacs and used that for quite a while and then tried
Emacs once more and never turned back--yet.

> VM is not likely to be supported well in the near future by FSF
> Emacs because Stallman made a design decision not to support some of
> the abstractions that VM needs.  :-(

I think it does work surprisingly well.  But then I turn off most of
the fancy stuff in VM like toolbars, multiple frames, etc.  I
occasionally have some problems related to internal differences
between the two Emacsen but it's currently not a huge problem for me.
If I tread carefully I can avoid many of those problems.

Oh, BTW, I think you forgot to comment one or two of my sentences in
my previous message :-)

-- 
Krister
---------------------------------------------------------------
TLUG Meeting: To be announced
---------------------------------------------------------------
a word from the sponsor:
TWICS - Japan's First Public-Access Internet System
www.twics.com  info@example.com  Tel:03-3351-5977  Fax:03-3353-6096