From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9582 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 15:26:34 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (HELO sunsite.auc.dk) (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 15:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 23008 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2000 15:26:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 3553 Received: (qmail 23001 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 15:26:12 -0000 X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru (at relayer david.siemens.de) Message-ID: <005a01c05ecf$cff2a200$c9c9ca95@mw1g666c> From: "Andrej Borsenkow" To: "Peter Stephenson" , , "Zsh users list" References: <0G510002CHNC9B@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> Subject: Re: Windows Zsh - Available Elsewhere? Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:26:54 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Stephenson" To: ; "Zsh users list" Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Windows Zsh - Available Elsewhere? > > The only reference I have been able to find to the > > Windows port of zsh is on ftp.blarg.net, which seems > > to always refuse anonymous ftp connections. > > You might want to take a look at Cygwin, which is now fully supported, for > various values of `fully'. Cygwin is easily downloadable (more or less, er, > fully automated) from sources.redhat.com, and zsh will compile out of the > box. This gives you a complete UNIX environment, which zsh running under > native Windows doesn't. However, it's not that fast. The comparison > between zsh running under Linux and under Windows 98/Cygwin on the same box > is painful (although the two words in the middle are probably the main > culprit). > I probably should add a comment, that recent versions of Cygwin are a bit faster. Also, there is some difference between Win9x and Win2k - I can say only about the latter and it has acceptable performance w.r.t. Cygwin (assuming, you are able to run Win2k at all :-) -andrej