We've been using it at the office for about a month, and its been both faster and more stable than 6.09.

We run on HP/UX 9.04 on a T500/4-way, with ASK/Ingres. The memory "leak" with Ingres has also been cleared up with this release as well. We couldn't be happier with 6.11!

On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:00:56 -0700, Karsten Self <karsten@VF.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:

>Luke: > >I've run 6.09 under Solaris (XWindows & OpenWindows, twm), and 6.11 under HPUX, >(XWindows, vuewwm & mwm). It's seemed more or less stable on all platforms. >SAS develops on HPUX/X, so I'd expect them to be pretty stable with >this environment. > >I tend to use command line, and occaisionally pmenues, but not the >command dialog, so I can't answer your concerns there. You might try >setting xresources for the help dialogs -- they appear if you rest the >pointer over a help icon for more than some fraction of a second, >either .450 or .750 by default, can't recall which, but somewhere in >that range. I've turned off the toolbox (another xresource, specified >as a command line option in the vuewm windows menu command I use to >launch SAS). Most of this is documented in either the "Changes & >Enhancements 6.11" or "Companion for Unix, Language". >> >> with X windows. I have already found a couple of problems and get the >> impression that this release is not very solid. The problems are all >> interface related. >> >> Problems include typing return in the command dialog which makes the >> whole SAS system bomb out - this works every time. Also little "help" >> flags that pop up when you point at the toolbar, but dissapear almost >> instantaneously. >> >> The X windows interface for 6.09 was pretty good. >> >> I wonder if SI expects the whole world to be using Win95, and isn't >> trying very hard with any other interfaces ? Has anyone else had >> similar problems ? >> >> Luke Whitaker >> Epidemiology >> St Mary's Med School >> London >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------- >Karsten M. Self -- Analytic Programmer > > KMSelf@ix.netcom.com > >What part of gestalt don't you understand?