I will continue to evaluate the WSL as I now have it installed and it seems
to work. I think my strategy will be to try both the native windows version
and the Ubuntu version of my key applications and just see which one works
best for me. I installed XMing for X server and it seems to work well.
BR / Johan
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Fabrice Popineau <
> 2017-08-03 0:12 GMT+02:00 Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com>:
>> Probably no real help, but win10 is (or soon will be) bundling in bash
>> shell, which may address many of the reasons to use Cygwin. From posts
>> I've seen on a number of lists, I would not be surprised to see cygwin
>> slowly decline into obscurity. I see little interest in the emacs devel
>> list for cygwin since the native windows version has matured (and it has
>> been suggested, is the largest emacs user base).
>> I am a Windows user (very long time) and Cygwin has never been an option
> to me.
> Native Emacs works pretty well under Windows.
> There is only one drawback: it is slow (slower than linux) at running
> external processes and some emacs packages do that pretty heavily
> (ivy/counsel, flycheck).
> I have seen reports of slower startup times with the native Windows emacs
> than with Linux, however I have not
> been able to reproduce them (for example using helm default config or
> spacemacs config).
> Depending on wheter you use a 32 bits emacs or a 64 bits emacs, you may
> want to add
> 32 bits Gnu utilities (https://sourceforge.net/projects/ezwinports/files/)
> or 64 bits Gnu utilities (http://www.msys2.org/, provides a much better
> environment than Cygwin in my opinion)
> Or you may want to try the new WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux, as
> described by Tim)
> which provides a full Ubuntu distribution without the penalty for running
> external processes,
> and without the penalty of running a VM.
> WSL is pretty impressive and emacs works pretty well once you get a good X
> server (like MobaXTerm).