From xemacs-m  Mon Feb 24 01:17:50 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA12443
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 01:17:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: from branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (branagh.ta52.lanl.gov [128.165.144.9]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id AAA19433 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:17:48 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA21037; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:13:51 -0700
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:13:51 -0700
Message-Id: <199702240713.AAA21037@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
From: "John A. Turner" <turner@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Probs with shell-mode (beta 95)
In-Reply-To: <m37mjyr9m6.fsf@jens.metrix.de>
References: <m37mjyr9m6.fsf@jens.metrix.de>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Jens Lautenbacher writes:

 > I have some problems with using shell mode. The Problem is _speed_
 > (like in so many cases :-/). Or better, the lack of.
 > The total lack of.
 > If I do a M-x shell a shell bufer is opened, OK. But even a simple
 > [Return] takes almost 5 seconds for the shell prompt to come back.
 > 
 > Unfortunately, if I start a pure xemacs -q, there is no delay.  
 > 
 > Which packages could interact in such a way with shell?

This sounds an awful lot like what I've reported for all post-b90
19.15's.  I posted about b95 earlier today.  Did you see it?

-- 
John Turner
http://www.lanl.gov/home/turner

