From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64? Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 18:43:28 +0200 Message-ID: <83r36oimof.fsf@gnu.org> 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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478450662 13686 195.159.176.226 (6 Nov 2016 16:44:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 16:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 06 17:44:14 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 1c3QXg-0006Eu-4V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 17:43:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45043 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QXi-000425-UY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:43:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38749) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QXA-00041p-Rv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:43:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QX6-0002px-7p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:43:04 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49975) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QX6-0002ps-4S; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:43:00 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4748 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QX5-00061F-E8; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:42:59 -0500 In-reply-to: <87pom8bn7q.fsf@wanadoo.es> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3s?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?car?= Fuentes on Sun, 06 Nov 2016 17:13:45 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:209211 Archived-At: > From: Óscar Fuentes > Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 17:13:45 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Besides, at this point it borders on technical malpractice to suggest > >> to users that it's OK to use Windows 9x to run Emacs. > > > > How can this be a malpractice, technical or otherwise? > > Windows 9X is a virus magnet and reservoir. Which has nothing to do with Emacs, even if it's true.