>  PS> problems with it. It has 
 >  PS> a greit debugger, a very good syntax highlighting editor, and it 
 > produces 

 > Debugging is important.  Editor is a nice-to-have, but really... there are 
 > many highlighting editors out there.  I'm quite used to fte, for example.

Yes, I have tryed a few, but I came to like VAC++'s. Since it was PM based, 
and online-help works, since it's a VAC++ tool.
(And it's adcanced too)

 >  PS> you want to use it, there is a Visual Builder where you 
 >  PS> can make your PM-apps 
 >  PS> like something Visual Basic like, only more advanced. 
 >  PS> But this will generate 
 >  PS> huge and slow runtimes, I don't plan to use it. And there is a very 
 > good 

 > Have you tried?  I'm sure that much of Merlin was written either with VAC++ 
 > and Java.  And, since the Java virtual machine wouldn't have been 
 > installed, the installation should have been written in VAC++...

I've tried some small stuff and gave it up. As far as OS/2 is concerned... 
Even if it was written in VAC++ (why not?) a can't imagine IBM using the VB 
(Visual Builder). It was the VB I meant that was genereting huge code, not 
VAC++ itself if that's what you thought.

 > I tried the Visual Builder.  It looked nice, but was _completely_ unusable 
 > (as in SLOW) on my machine.

Yeah! On my 16 meg, it needed about 5 minutes just to start up!

 >  PS> VB, you should get 32 
 >  PS> (IBM says 24). I have 48 megs, and I don't do any heavy 
 >  PS> stuff, but it flys... 

 > I have 64 meg, and it's useless.  Note: my conclusion is that while RAM 
 > helps, so does CPU.  I only have a 486/66.  I'm guessing you have at least 
 > a P90, if not a P120 or better.

P133

 >  PS> Had 16 before, it was a bit slow but usable. I think I 
 >  PS> read in some newsgroup 
 >  PS> that 4.0 would require 300 Megs of RAM.

 > 300 megs of RAM?  I doubt it.  300 megs of HD space, perhaps...

I meant HD :-) Sorry...

/ Peter Schuller   [TeamOS/2]   petersch{at}kuai.se


--- AdeptXBBS v1.08a26 (VC) (Registered)