At 05:23 PM 5/5/2007, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> For me, the clincher is cygwin's X server.
Then why do you use the native Windows port of Emacs? The Cygwin port
is a faithful emulation of Emacs compiled with the X toolkit, and will
avoid any problems with Cygwin vs native executables.
Perhaps I should try that, thanks. My use of NT emacs dates back
well before I adopted cygwin.
> When I run my remote emacs in a cygwin X window,
> though, it's nearly as powerful as my local NT emacs.
Why ``nearly''? what is missing?
The point below.
> C-M-F10 seems to get eaten
I'm guessing that this is a problem with the X server, not with Emacs.
Oh, absolutely! I intended no slur on emacs.
My intention in even bringing it up was to note that, since that's
the only glitch I observe, running remote emacs under cygwin's X
server works very well indeed.
