Re: have installed cygwin, & "its" emacs. dired shows only subtree, no "up"

[Will Parsons <oudeis@nodomain.invalid>]

David Combs wrote:
> In article <9c7ab644-18fe-478f-9516-6b8f051aee7a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> rustom  <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sep 21, 6:45 am, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)"
>><lennart.borg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Any idea how to refer to the sandisk?
>>>
>>> It gets a drive letter, at least on my pc.
>>
>>Native emacs (for windows) is better than cygwin emacs
>
> Well, OK.
>
> Please, though, (so I can convince her to download yet 
> another humongous emacs ("ntemacs" is what you mean?)
> onto her computer), please give a few reasons for
> saying that.

I don't know what's better in your situation, but for years now I've made
Cygwin an integral part of how I use Windows, but have always used the
native Windows Emacs (NTEmacs).  The original reason for doing so was
that Cygwin Emacs had problems running in a command Window (without running
Cygwin X), and I had no other reasons for running the Cygwin X server.
Also (at least at the time), the Cygwin version of Emacs lagged behind the
current version of NTEmacs.  Using the cygwin-mount package with NTEmacs
gave the best of both worlds.  Nowadays, I'm running the Cygwin X server
for other reasons, and the situation may have changed, but I think it's
still an advantage to use the native version, if for no other reason than
if a problem occurs, one can ask on this newgroup directly, rather than
figuring out whether the question is more appropiate for the Cygwin mailing
list.

-- 
Will