From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows 9X compatibility Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:24:28 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sywpvv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83tys2fbxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbo1iubm.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> <4BAE9ED4.6070900@t-online.de> <4BAEA525.20709@gmail.com> <83iq8ggbcp.fsf@gnu.org> <87mxxs3311.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269789911 10833 80.91.229.12 (28 Mar 2010 15:25:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 28 17:25:07 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvuMI-0008I1-OL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:25:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46104 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NvuMI-0003cl-0y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:25:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NvuMA-0003bv-7o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:24:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33263 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NvuM7-0003au-7s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:24:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvuM5-0006U1-RP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:24:51 -0400 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:3443) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvuM5-0006Tw-L5; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:24:49 -0400 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so2333674fgb.12 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:24:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dfeU2XD8PbO2MqegVqpjGMFnughA7VF774TC6swSVDE=; b=PoXWta0Fz6MVHMm2/7KlTJih/eZJoUAyvPjAxAeiKVi7N/YGR9htpq2+ktcR4hCUHm 4sFddt9ssOyhRVKXbe+Us140aF1Wi63xK96GQuqopPxLZMzSHhQePatmAGJKmRpPrNU5 P2y66J6wV87fNw23ogVHqIW4mXTfqzWWhnOmQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=R22jBOliSFjSnmyN0MTO8iCvAIDaJ3LEfgdJg9CRtHNswOTgoiLczgmgS2x4AsrK+w IjYYhhdL8Q/yjrcWDb2Jgd+AbAoTY8QEAuPmPskZJflWbT4d2iPXusX9K1TUm5W3MAR+ kWkwP6cxa/gjr+yv70ecdUy9xOET28kIwCaos= Original-Received: by 10.86.95.20 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:24:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mxxs3311.fsf@telefonica.net> Original-Received: by 10.87.15.40 with SMTP id s40mr1507641fgi.44.1269789888234; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122794 Archived-At: On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM, =C3=93scar Fuentes wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Maybe the fact that there are no more active maintainers of the > MS-Windows port is somewhat related to the pain in the rear that W9X > compatbility is? I think this might be true. I saw some signs of that when I first started looking into the ms-windows port. > Furthermore, the claim about lots of *running* machines on > underdeveloped areas still having W9X is dubious now. AFAIK, people > transitioned to Windows XP when powerful enough obsoleted machines > arrived, which started to happen about 6 years ago. The first intranet web-server I built was running on w9x. Due to severe problem with ms word background conversion to html on this pc I switched to experminenting on that old pc with nt4. To my surprise nt4 required a lot less resources so it ran much smoother on the old pc. So I doubt that we need to support w9x because of old pc:s. But maybe someone is running w9x just because they can't get their hand on nt4 or xp of course.