>> [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.
The decision as which to use on a Unix system would
normally be governed by other factors.
--
Lynn
(text/plain)