Re: launch a program in an arbitrary frame

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Whatever they had was more than enough for running
> Emacs, in my experience. Whether Sun, SGI, or
> another brand. Other applications could sometimes
> tax a workstation, but not Emacs.

SGI = Silicon Graphics International?

"Silicon Graphics International, formerly Rackable
Systems, which acquired the former Silicon Graphics,
Inc"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics_International)

> It wasn't a problem. At all. Do you remember it
> being a problem to use Emacs on a workstation, or
> are you just repeating something you heard? So far,
> you've said that workstations were limited in
> resources and Emacs was/is a memory hog. Do you
> actually remember having a problem using Emacs on
> a workstation in the 80s? It would be interesting to
> hear from others too about this.

It would be (even more) interesting if you told us
more about those days and spent less an effort trying
to bust the OP :)

>> some people even felt that way about the then-new
>> bash shell.
>
> X Window and bash are not Emacs.

I can definitely see X being slow then as well as
today, with graphics always being slow save for spoilt
kids who run monster machines bought by their affluent
but absent parents, only so the kids can play moronic
FPSs and share porn... and besides (with X), that
interesting but complicated distributed architecture
won't win any horse races, I reckon. But bash?! For
a shell to be slow, and to slow down the entire
system, something has to be seriously wrong. Anyway,
if there isn't a shell, and no GUI or base window
system, how do you interact with the system? Or do you
mean people who thought bash was too slow still had
the hardware to run a predecessor shell - simply the
Bourne shell, or perhaps [a]sh?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573