Re: [h-e-w] Windows Emacs vs Emacs on Linux., X, etc

[Chris McMahan]

I would have to say you need to install the cygwin tools on Windows. I
run on Windows XP with the full suite of cygwin tools. I've got all of
the unix commands available to me, and I've even managed to compile
w3m to run on this platform. Emacs packages generally compile straight
out of the box, and updates to the tools are frequent and easily
obtained.

What I am still missing is image support from within emacs... but
then... I'm not REALLY missing that too much.

If you would like some help getting the stuff set up... give me a
holler!

 - Chris McMahan

Chris Lott writes:
>Are there many people who have only used Windows Emacs? Except for
>occasional shell use I had only used Windows Emacs until a few days ago when
>I took the plunge and set up an Linux/X desktop. I have to say, uszing emacs
>on its "native" platform is a completely different (and positive)
>experience. Every package I want to use works, everything installs the way
>it is supposed to, and it doesn't take hours of twiddling to cobble things
>together to make paths and windows ports of tools work (and I can finally
>reliably use some cool things like preview-latex and w3m. It has been an
>immense pleasure. Emacs has given me enough on Windows that it was worth it.
>But... while I appreciate this list and the hard work people have put into
>porting (and since I have to use Windows for some tasks, I am happy Emacs is
>there)... I had no idea what I was missing!
>
>c
>--
>Chris Lott
>
>

-- 
    ================================
    Chris McMahan | address@hidden
    ================================