"Chris Lott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is the "best" way to run emacs on Windows XP to use the Native XP build > or the Cygwin? By "best" I mean: stable, able to run elisp code from > emacs.sources, and able to effectively use external tools like grep, > diff, etc... ?
If you are only using Cygwin tools, then Cygwin might be better in some respects, but if that is the case, why use Windows at all? For any other case, I'd have to say the native build for the following reasons. Cygwin Emacs does not appear to be regularly maintained. Maybe the original port was good enough that it doesn't need anyone maintaining it, but I doubt it. A lot of effort has been put into making native Windows Emacs work with Cygwin tools. The cygwin developers don't seem to show any interest in making their tools work with native Windows tools. Even for such programs as make where running external tools is the program's primary purpose, their solution is to ask everyone to rewrite their makefiles with awkward macros around filename arguments that might be processed by non-Cygwin tools. _______________________________________________ Help-gnu-emacs mailing list Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
