[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 08:34:48 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

On 11/07/2016 06:43 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
even a few years ago
people were still installing unauthorized copies of Windows 98 on PCs,
because Microsoft made it harder to install subsequent Windows

That was true fifteen years ago, but unauthorized versions of more-recent MS-Windows systems have been widely available for ages and they are the ones invariably installed nowadays. Last year, for example, Microsoft announced[1] that it would give free Windows 10 licenses to users running unauthorized copies of Windows 7 or 8.1 because unauthorized versions were so popular (they reportedly had most of the Chinese market). StatCounter reports that in China, where unauthorized use is common, Windows XP had over 90% of desktop use by 2008 (with the remainder mostly being later versions of Windows), and that nowadays Windows 7 and Windows 10 are both more popular than XP, with the 9x line being too small to count separately during this period.

So in practice Windows 9x is dead, and covering Windows 9x prominently in Emacs documentation wastes users' time and makes us look technically dated.

1. Hachman M. Microsoft offers amnesty of sorts to pirates of older Windows software. PCWorld 2015-10-29. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2999443/windows/microsoft-offers-amnesty-of-sorts-to-pirates-of-older-windows-software.html

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]