sb> Or maybe no one cares and we can drop XEmacs/no-Mule entirely sb> ... KMH> Is Mule really that much slower than nomule, or with coding KMH> system only? I think a lot of non-mule users would like to KMH> keep using it without the mule support if it's faster enough KMH> to matter. Data point: I just moved over from non-mule (21.1.p2) to mule (21.1.p3) and yes, on my dual P2-350, there is a difference. I notice about .1--.25 second slower speed for a few intensive elisp programs (gnus with every concievable option, ESS (a stat interface I need to xemacs-package up, sigh), bbdb on my 500K .bbdb file :-). If I'm not compiling (which happens with ESS, which I'm developing), it's worse. But, not worse enough to worry about :-). (add another 0.5sec to the response). I'm not seeing much slowdown (any? I can't tell) with Java/Python programming using Speedbar/CC/JDE/Python modes, I recently had the pleasure of running on a 486/66. Now that's slow. But not XEmacs/mule on "modern" hardware :-). I guess it depends on the comparison... best, -tony -- A.J. Rossini Research Assistant Professor of Biostatistics Center for AIDS Research UW Biostatistics 206-720-4282 (4209=fax) 206-543-1044 (xxxx=fax) rossini(a)u.washington.edu rossini(a)biostat.washington.edu http://www.biostat.washington.edu/~rossini/