From:	Weiqi Gao <weiqigao AT a DOT crl DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Which is better... EMACS or RHIDE? [Shameless RHIDE plug]
Date:	Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:54:45 -0500
Organization:	Spectrum Healthcare Services
Lines:	33
Message-ID:	<33E3E4E5.F3797A65@a.crl.com>
References:	<33DD805E DOT DF5783BC AT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <33DE1B61 DOT D8DABC92 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <5rscun$bkg AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	a116021.stl1.as.crl.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> 
> > EMACS just grow on you.
> 
> It grows on your hard drive, consuming it meg by meg.

This statement is cute, but unfortunately untrue.  My EMACS installation
takes only $29.2MB disk space.  It hasn't grown a byte since the
installation.

> It has been found infesting the boot sector of a floppy disk and 
> spreading that way, when someone decided to determine why the 
> 1.44 meg floppy was only registering
> 3 kb of free space but had just been formatted...

Evidence, please.

> Get RHIDE. It takes up half a meg, and it STAYS half a meg. :)
> And you can actually run it on an old 8-meg 486... (not to mention Windows
> NT. Emacs is allergic to Windows NT. NT must have stricter stuff to
> protect itself from memory hogs and viruses!)

Between Windows NT and EMACS, I can't determine which one is more of a
memory hog.

(I'm not trying to diminish the value of RHIDE in any way.  I'm just
trying to point out that EMACS and RHIDE are two vastly different
programs, and which one is better for one's current task depends
entirely on the task.)

--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao AT a DOT crl DOT com

- Raw text -