From xemacs-m  Wed Dec 18 16:43:45 1996
Received: from pm1.contactor.se (isdn74056.dial.tip.net [194.17.4.56])
          by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id QAA06259 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:43:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: from SID (ras6 [194.18.85.116]) by pm1.contactor.se (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA06162; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:43:50 +0100 (MET)
Sender: matsl@sid.contactor.se
To: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Cc: Mats Lidell <Mats.Lidell@contactor.se>,
        Bob Weiner <weiner@wave.infodock.com>, xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Porting XEmacs to Windows NT or 95.
References: <199612170128.RAA02480@infodock.com> <upw08ajkv.fsf@pm1.contactor.se> <kigvia0rar8.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.93)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Mats Lidell <Mats.Lidell@contactor.se>
Date: 18 Dec 1996 23:47:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of 18 Dec 1996 00:50:35 +0100
Message-ID: <ud8w7cvwn.fsf@pm1.contactor.se>
Lines: 29
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.60/Emacs 19.34

>>>>> "Hrv" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

    Hrv> Mats Lidell (Mats.Lidell@contactor.se) wrote:
    >> I guess you are referring to a real native port with Windows
    >> look an feel? Great but ...  I wonder how much work it would be
    >> to port it using a local X emulation package. (If that is the
    >> right name for it. I know of at least one X-server product that
    >> allows clients to run locally. I even

    Hrv> For some reason I'm afraid this would make XEmacs a champion
    Hrv> at slowness.  

You might be right but I use an X-server on NT all day long an have
lots of CPU-cycles over for running other tasks locally. I don't see
why XEmacs couldn't be one of them and that it would perform well.

    Hrv> Furthermore, XEmacs already supports the ideas of how to
    Hrv> support different window systems.  "Supporting" NT by using
    Hrv> an X server seems like nothing more than a kludge.

Well I don't claim this would be an ideal solution in the long
run. Clearly a native port is what we want. 

Still the X-server approach could be an alternative since there might
be other X-application that you might want to run on NT and we don't
have the time to port them all have we. (Hmm... someone should really
make a free X-server package for NT.)

%% Mats

