From xemacs-m  Sun Dec  8 23:57:29 1996
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12]) by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id XAA17716 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 23:57:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: from xdiv.lanl.gov (xdiv.lanl.gov [128.165.116.106]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA10934; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:57:29 -0700 (MST)
Received: from branagh.lanl.gov (branagh.lanl.gov [128.165.16.72]) by xdiv.lanl.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26496; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:57:30 -0700
Received: by branagh.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA07409; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:55:30 -0700
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:55:30 -0700
Message-Id: <199612090555.WAA07409@branagh.lanl.gov>
From: John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov>
To: steve@miranova.com
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: The future of XEmacs
In-Reply-To: <m2zpzojm1r.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <m2afrol569.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<yviaenh0uxqb.fsf@atreides.mindspring.com>
	<199612090528.WAA07277@branagh.lanl.gov>
	<m2zpzojm1r.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Steven L. Baur writes:

 > Yup.  Before I switched machines, I used a 66MHz Cyrix486 with 32MB of
 > RAM and it worked just fine.  But I use fast-lock not lazy-lock, and
 > only have func-menu enabled by keystroke.  I also avoid having more
 > than 1 frame displayed of large numbers of mousable extents (like
 > dired, Gnus *Topics*/*Summary*, *Compilation*, etc.).

Wow.  That's roughly comparable to the IPX in my table (which had
64MB), which I found to be basically unusable.  I'm gonna have to play
around some with this...

-John

