From: ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Which is better... EMACS or RHIDE? [Shameless RHIDE plug]
Date: 5 Aug 1997 06:21:39 GMT
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <5s6gpj$ovv@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
References: <33DD805E DOT DF5783BC AT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <33DE1B61 DOT D8DABC92 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <5rscun$bkg AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> <33E58719 DOT 6F13 AT post DOT comstar DOT ru>
Reply-To: ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire)
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet2.carleton.ca
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


Dim Zegebart (zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru) writes:
> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>> 
>> NT. Emacs is allergic to Windows NT. NT must have stricter stuff to
>> protect itself from memory hogs and viruses!)
> You are not quite correct. I have port of Emacs to NT. It comes with
> GIS system Small World and used by it like a shell.

OK, to be exact: GNU Emacs chokes on NT platforms.
--
    .*.  Where feelings are concerned, answers are rarely simple [GeneDeWeese]
 -()  <  When I go to the theater, I always go straight to the "bag and mix"
    `*'  bulk candy section...because variety is the spice of life... [me]
Paul Derbyshire ao950 AT freenet DOT carleton DOT ca, http://chat.carleton.ca/~pderbysh