On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Lynn David Newton wrote:

>
>   >> [1]  In contrast, GNU Emacs is *not* supported, no
>   >> doubt because of the neo-apartheid philosophies of RMS
>   >> and his cronies which will probably prevent a porting
>   >> effort from ever taking place. But that's all right,
>   >> because XEmacs is orders of magnitude better than GNU
>   >> Emacs anyhow.
>
>   rb> Actually, I run Emacs 21.1 on my Windows 2000
>   rb> box, and XEmacs is only better if you like to
>   rb> sacrifice memory to get point-and-drool candy.
>   rb> (pardon the aggressive tone, but you started it
>   rb> :)
>
> Indeed I did, and I stand corrected and retract my
> "aggressive" statement! I did not know that GNU Emacs
> was available for Windows. (And am glad to hear that it
> is.) Because of the memory required, I would be
> inclined to think that on Windows GNU Emacs would be a
> better solution than XEmacs, particularly for anyone
> who has never used either one.

While I prefer Emacs, I think that the friendlier user
interface in XEmacs makes it a better choice for the
Windows disk. I was just saying there are valid reasons
to prefer Emacs. Besides, Windows already requires you
to have a mountain of RAM, what's one more app?