The emacs website has versions down to 22, but none of them seem to work correctly on Windows 98. I managed to get emacs 22 running, but it does not display correctly on screen. Only the -nw version runs correctly.
Is there any version that works well on the older OSes?
Come on mate, go download whatever version was current then from some old ftp site or choose a less mad hobby.
Looks like https://ftp.gnu.old/old-gnu/emacs may have what you need. There’s a windows directory in there too.
This old FAQ mentions that (at the time) Emacs 20.7.1 was the latest version, and describes it working on Windows 95/98/NT. I do see 20.7 on that FTP server.
Good luck! (And may God have mercy on you :D)
How are you accessing that website? The link is not working for me (site can’t be reached error).
Hmmm. I typed it by hand, so let me check I didn’t mess it up
Edit: Ha, yep. s/.old/.org/. I’ve fixed it.
I used to use notgnu emacs on Win 98. Not really emacs (no elisp) but it was solid for me. https://www.geocities.ws/notgnu/ (GeoCities!)
new site notgnu.org isn’t working, you can possibly email the author for help if you want it.
Why don’t you just use a modern version of Windows? You can download it from Microsoft for free. It only lacks a few non-essential features without activation.
This is for a project I’m working on a Windows 98 machine. No need to be condescending.
There was no condescension in that post. Many people all questions like this when the correct answer is in fact to find a different solution such as using a modern OS. Nowhere did you explain that using a modern OS was not an option.
Please try to avoid immediately going on the defensive when someone makes a suggestion that you feel is ignoring something important about your question when you failed to adequately explain your reasoning.
The user first posted “Why don’t you ask an Archaeologist” and then deleted/edited their comment to the current version. Felt condescending to me.
As for the clarity of the question, certainly I’m happy to offer follow ups, but to me it seems pretty straightforward. If someone’s asking for a version specifically for Windows 98 in 2023, it’s not because they did not consider a newer OS. It seems be going out of your way to be confused, but then again, I can’t speak for everybody.
The user first posted “Why don’t you ask an Archaeologist”
That’s good advice. They were just trying to help you. Who else would you expect to have knowledge of such ancient software?
It’s not my intention to be condescending. However, using a 25 year old piece of software that is not being maintained anymore is rarely the best option. You didn’t explain why you can’t use a newer version of Windows or a modern Linux distro.
I mean, I keep a computer around running Windows 3.11. Some people enjoy the challenge of running old software on old hardware, rather than in emulators—it’s fun. 25 years old definitely qualifies as “retro.”
But also “you didn’t explain” is, again, kinda condescending—why should OP have to justify themself to you? You couldn’t imagine any reason they might be asking about Windows 98 other than that they were wrong and in need of correction? If that were so, why would GNU bother maintaining the old-gnu FTP directory?