Re: [h-e-w] Differences between emacses

[Harald . Maier . BW]

Below my experience with cygwin emacs. For me it's a little bit slow
but works fine. Less problems with my tons of startup files.

Harald

"Fredrik Oberg" <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
> what are the differences between the emacs included in 
> Cygwin and NTEmacs? Is anyone preferred over the other? I 
> have always used NTEmacs, but as I tend to use Cygwin more 
> and more, I wonder if I should use that emacs instead.
>
> Thanks in advance
> /Fredrik

From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Experiences with new cygwin port of GNU Emacs 21.2
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help
Date: Sat Sep 14 09:25:14 2002 +0200
Reply-To: Harald Maier <address@hidden>


Klaus Berndl <address@hidden> writes:

> Are there already experiences about the new cygwin port of GNU Emacs 21.2
> which is available now?
>
> For example experiences about stability, performance (general overall, but
> also especially concerning IO and file-access)?
>
> Maybe differences between native NTEmacs and the new cygwin-emacs?
> Is there any website or something similar where i can read these topics?

As I mentioned before it's now a X11 emacs that runs on top of the
cygwin library and you need always an Xserver. Installation of the
emacs packages installs too the X11R6 and it all takes ca. 100 MB. The
cygwin xserver (XWin.exe) runs really fine and I am now looking for
working only with that xserver. All works out from the box for english
keyboards. For German keyboards it needs feedling with a xmodmap file.

For German keyboards you will find Xmodmap files under:

  http://www-usercgi.tu-chemnitz.de/~goal/xfree/#modmap

Performance (emacs -q --no-site-file):
NT  Emacs:  0 seconds
X11 Emacs:  9 seconds

Performance (my configuration):
NT  Emacs: 22 seconds
X11 Emacs: 32 seconds

It loads my tons of configuration file without any problem. Some
things needs to be adjusted with the system-type 'cygwin' and
'windows-nt' especially for shell handling. So in general it looks for
me that lisp processing is as fast as under ntemacs. In one personal
package example the cygwin emacs is faster as ntemacs (reading a 20000
line file and afterward building a hash table with all the line
offsets: cygwin emacs 3 seconds, ntemacs 4 seconds).

One think that I dislike is the old athena widget set scorll bar but
this should be really not a problem.

So my conclusion is that it's stable and works perfect.

Harald