Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 22:26:38 +0000
> 
> Incidentally, M-q seems to remove the double space.

Not in "emacs -Q", so it's something with your customizations.

> > Also, please don't remove information about Windows 9X, as the 32-bit
> > MS-Windows build of Emacs still supports that.
> 
> I would argue against this. I removed the material on Windows 9x since
> it has long since reached EOL -- 10 years, or 25% of Emacs' existance.

That is true, but we still try supporting those old systems, as they
are widespread in the 3rd world.  We have code whose only purpose is
to continue that support.  We don' take MS EOL decisions as important.

> While providing this information somewhere might be useful, having it in
> this readme mostly serves to make the readme and to some extent Emacs
> appear unmaintained.

I don't see why a document that mentions the latest version of Emacs
could appear unmaintained.  If you'd like we could mention the date of
last update in the file.

> In addition, it also makes the documentation longer which adds to
> the impression that Emacs is hard to use.

One short paragraph is not a significant addition, IMO.

> I'd be happy to look for somewhere else to put this information, if you
> think it need to be retained.

There's no other good place.  This is the file where users should look
for preliminaries for Emacs installation.

Thanks.