From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64? Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:57:36 -0800 Message-ID: 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> <05ba947a-970a-178c-8036-bcdf84485384@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478469503 23615 195.159.176.226 (6 Nov 2016 21:58:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 21:58:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 Cc: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 06 22:58:19 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 1c3VRq-0002XB-DI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 22:57:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48301 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3VRt-00009a-Dr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 16:57:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39769) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3VRn-00009B-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 16:57:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3VRk-00004u-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 16:57:51 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:39254) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3VRk-0008SD-9I; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 16:57:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=C2l/MUri1hJrBsoxaM/6NRYl9T4ObWDpwlJeu9SMZDA=; b=cXRNIHeFMrc/hM7KlAIYwdx8aW953ELghRZwxUt0+rGjFH2Mtjnr8pDzXPmv8aOafGjXoBfrZP1Omx0B3otxnaYwZ56VyYdUA+56M4bYvU+xkQCy0ZsGyEh1mE65Cr4tWVKnxD41TP5KOGzUF7bCC93+1FAf+R9X5CXmG2QIbEz4VmXNiVMhdMUQHE8wfcRQS3S1dYomaKxP8VIgERetNFggz63U1lyt7bdc/CLDS5ekS3DV42+hPI0UrRGf5vw5ttcR8RPNcbYJ6s/poK/1U65hNHGJ0RCntxxkex3Mu/zmZ5oJtQcY4dYKtBaIWLfG139lJA9ZmFay9nSH/PYMLQ==; Original-Received: from c-73-97-199-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.97.199.232] helo=[192.168.1.173]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c3VRc-0004OQ-5l; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:57:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: <05ba947a-970a-178c-8036-bcdf84485384@cs.ucla.edu> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 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:209228 Archived-At: On 11/06/2016 01:54 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Windows/ME was never popular, even when it was released > > As I understand it, that "WinME" label is a catchall that includes the > MS-Windows 9x line, and "0.01%" is so small that I doubt whether it is > statistically significant. In practice then 9x line has transitioned > from unsupported (ten years ago) to on-its-way-out (five years ago) to > dead (now, almost everywhere), and any old decisions that assumed 9x's > viability are now obsolete. > > In GNU projects, we typically stop worrying about an underlying platform > when its original supplier stops supporting it. For example, Emacs no > longer worries about IRIX because SGI stopped supporting IRIX in 2013. > Although MS-Windows 9x is special partly because it was so popular long > ago, Emacs need not support 9x indefinitely, and Emacs's documentation > should not give Emacs users the incorrect impression that 9x is still a > live platform. It would be nice to have a data-based condition for dropping 9X support. Windows 9X already well beyond the level of dead past which we stop supporting other platforms, and it'd be nice to have a clear understanding of when we can finally drop 9X support --- this way, we'll know when we can drop XP support.