X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 14:05:42 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Thomas Mueller <tmueller AT bluegrass DOT net>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GNU Emacs DOS (DJGPP) port converts upper-ASCII characters to ASCII 127
In-Reply-To: <a45liu$1cobd5$1@ID-49635.news.dfncis.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020210140129.15572P-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On 10 Feb 2002, Thomas Mueller wrote:

> Not working in a Windows DOS box should not be an issue, since there is a Win32
> port of Emacs, and Xemacs too, which would be fuller-featured than DOS Emacs,
> having the Windows GUI or XFree86 Win32 port, and better support of long file
> names and multitasking.  So why would Windows-based DJGPP users prefer the DOS
> port of Emacs over the Win32 port, except perhaps for testing purposes?

I prefer using the DJGPP port of Emacs even when I work on Windows because:

  - I can fix _any_ bug in it, even if the bug is in the library (the 
    Windows port uses the Microsoft CRTDLL.DLL, for which there's no 
    sources freely available);

  - It has a much nicer and more reliable interface with the rest of my 
    development tools, which are based on DJGPP (by contrast, with the 
    Windows port, I would need to install Cygwin, whose interaction with 
    the Windows port of Emacs is troublesome);

  - I don't need the GUI stuff too much.