FYI: The EmacsPortable.App launcher lets you opt out of all the registry changes it does.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Drew Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > FWIW, that messing with the registry etc. is a main reason > > > that I would *not* use EmacsW32. > > > > > > (Note: I am not saying that anyone else should not use it. > > > I'm very glad that Lennart has made EmacsW32 available.) > > > > The installation process let you choose if it should change the > > registry or not ;-) > > Yes, well, messing with the registry is only one thing to inhibit. There > is > lots of other messing about that I would also want to prevent (opt out of). > > But some of those are no doubt things that others might appreciate. > People's > needs are different. > > Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone not to use EmacsW32 - far from > it. I'm > just saying that for my purposes, which include having multiple builds of > unmessed-with vanilla GNU Emacs on the same machine, and equally > accessible, I > have no need for EmacsW32, and it would just be a bother. > > And I am not convinced that it is easier to "install" Emacs with such an > installer than it is to unzip a zip archive and optionally create a > shortcut to > the executable. Especially if you start fiddling with telling the > installer to > do this but not do that, etc. > > That was my main point. It seems to me that the advantage of EmacsW32 can > come > from the many changes that it makes to Emacs, not from its ease of > installing or > any resultant ease in starting Emacs. > > And I prefer not to have such changes to Emacs, so I see no EmacsW32 > advantage > for my use case. > >
