From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64? Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 21:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: <8760o0bc0g.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <6e2cffe5-942b-48d4-9ed5-ef39803bcd30@googlegroups.com> <87mvhgsf21.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8360o4monq.fsf@gnu.org> <87vaw4gq0j.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83oa1vlnkk.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1iba6od.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83ins2jq88.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg2p8swx.fsf@russet.org.uk> <831sypjmst.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpggip8j.fsf@gnu.org> <87pom8bn7q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83r36oimof.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgwwbkzo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83pom8ikre.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1i8bh21.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83mvhcifk8.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478463477 4604 195.159.176.226 (6 Nov 2016 20:17:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 20:17:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 06 21:17:53 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c3TsT-0004az-Ba for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 21:17:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47214 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3TsW-0007uZ-A4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 15:17:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47378) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3Tre-0007sl-NY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 15:16:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3Tra-00089A-8W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 15:16:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=37795 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3Tra-00088H-1j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 15:16:22 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c3TrN-0004uI-87 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 21:16:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 41 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:ccfvt5U2orYaShYkqPGQjnbOTuM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209225 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Having to figure out how to make Emacs work on Windows 9X (*) for >> allowing some hypothetical users (**) to keep shooting themselves on the >> foot seems like something we could stop doing at this moment. > > Just to set the record straight, and to help those who might be > looking for this information: > >> * Accessing reliable information about which APIs work on Windows 9X is >> not easy at all. > > One can find that information here: > > http://winapi.freetechsecrets.com/win32/ Hmmm... let's hope it lasts. It is a web version of the help files that came with Delphi, which IIRC were copyrighted by MS and licensed to Borland. > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/sal/systools/win32/uwinapi/unicows.dxp > > (The 2nd one lists functions absent from Windows 9X, but added by > UNICOWS.DLL.) I don't know how a DLL symbol dump can be regarded as documentation but, anyway, maybe those URLs should be added to the appropriate files in the Emacs documentation. >> ** How many bug reports came from Windows 9X users on the last, say, 8 >> years? > > Two, AFAIR. They were both about things that didn't work on 9X, which > we fixed since then. I remember at least one issue raised by a Windows 9X user years ago. That individual didn't fit the "3rd world" profile at all. IIRC he was using Windows 9X just because he was change-averse. I always find it funny that those individuals insist on keeping their old machines with the correspondingly old OSes while at the same time requesting the latest versions of third-party software packages :-)