Would somebody please comment on the differences between emacs and 
xemacs under Windows, and the advantages/disadvantages of each compared 
to the other?

Thanks.

-- 
Murray Eisenberg                     murray@math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower      phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts                413 545-2859 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street            fax   413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305

>>>>> "Murray" == Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu> writes:

    Murray> Would somebody please comment on the differences between
    Murray> emacs and xemacs under Windows, and the
    Murray> advantages/disadvantages of each compared to the other?

This is just my feeling; I have no data to back it up, but: I suspect
(as with *nix), that GNU Emacs is more widely used, and so you'll be
more easily able to get help with it.

-- 
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
        -- John McCarthy

When I was debating switching to Emacs (from XEmacs), I did a google
search for "switch from XEmacs to Emacs?" or "switch from XEmacs to
GNU Emacs?" and came up with a lot -- A LOT.  Also, Emacswiki, has a
page devoted to this, one that I found very helpful:
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsAndXEmacs#toc4

My own story is that I tried Emacs on Windows for a couple of days,
didn't like how it looked and changed to XEmacs.  I stayed with XEmacs
(and configured it considerably) through my changeover to Linux.  Then
I tried Emacs with my .emacs file (which took a little work) and now I
am devoted to Emacs.

I would be unqualified to comment on the positive sides of Emacs under
Windows, however if it has the same advantages under Windows that it
does on Linux (it may not and there are good reasons), then I would
suggest Emacs.  Many more things work in Emacs that gave me funny
errors in XEmacs.  This is mainly because most packages are developed
directly for Emacs.  The XEmacs versions I found were seriously
out-of-date or broken (didn't work at all); most worked, but when they
failed, they really got in the way of productivity.  However, I found
the package system quite convenient under Windows, and it performed
quite well.

Can you ask a more specific question?

Hope this helps,
Joel



Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu> writes:

> Would somebody please comment on the differences between emacs and
> xemacs under Windows, and the advantages/disadvantages of each
> compared to the other?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
> Murray Eisenberg                     murray@math.umass.edu
> Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
> Lederle Graduate Research Tower      phone 413 549-1020 (H)
> University of Massachusetts                413 545-2859 (W)
> 710 North Pleasant Street            fax   413 545-1801
> Amherst, MA 01003-9305

-- 
Joel J. Adamson
Biostatistician
Pediatric Psychopharmacology Research Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, MA  02114
(617) 643-1432
(303) 880-3109

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

jadamson@partners.org (Joel J. Adamson) writes:

> When I was debating switching to Emacs (from XEmacs), I did a google
> search for "switch from XEmacs to Emacs?" or "switch from XEmacs to
> GNU Emacs?" and came up with a lot -- A LOT.  Also, Emacswiki, has a
> page devoted to this, one that I found very helpful:
> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsAndXEmacs#toc4
>
> My own story is that I tried Emacs on Windows for a couple of days,
> didn't like how it looked and changed to XEmacs.  I stayed with XEmacs
> (and configured it considerably) through my changeover to Linux.  Then
> I tried Emacs with my .emacs file (which took a little work) and now I
> am devoted to Emacs.
>
> I would be unqualified to comment on the positive sides of Emacs under
> Windows, however if it has the same advantages under Windows that it
> does on Linux (it may not and there are good reasons), then I would
> suggest Emacs.

It has mostly now (speaking of Emacs 22) and I could imagine that you
would no longer consider the looks of XEmacs on Windows superior to
those of Emacs.

-- 
David Kastrup

I think Xemacs is going the ways of the dinosaurs.

See
"My Experiences of Emacs vs Xemacs"
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_vs_xemacs.html

  Xah
  xah@xahlee.org
  http://xahlee.org/

Xah Lee <xah@xahlee.org> writes:

> I think Xemacs is going the ways of the dinosaurs.

Both Emacs and XEmacs, to be fair.

> See
> "My Experiences of Emacs vs Xemacs"
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_vs_xemacs.html

M-x customize-variable RET dired-recursive-deletes RET
M-x customize-variable RET dired-recursive-copies RET

I would have thought that "top" would have been the default in Emacs
22.1 since I made this change, but apparently I did it just after the
Emacs 22 branch had been created.

Too bad.  But you still can do so manually.

-- 
David Kastrup