Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email protected]> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> We already do: just invoke runemacs.exe rather than emacs.exe.
>>
>> As for forking a thread: it is a bit more complex than that. (We
>> already start at least 2 threads at startup.) The 2 most important
>> problems are (1) the same executable should be able to run in a text
>> terminal session under -nw, and (2) we don't want the GUI session to
>> have a console. runemacs.exe solves both.
>>
>> Any reasons not to close this bug?
>
> (I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
> at the time.)
>
> "Use runemacs" seems like it's the correct answer here, so I'm closing
> this bug report.
It is the right answer, but I can't help thinking that there is an issue of
ignorance amongst Window users.
Does anyone know why the OP had this `wrong'?
I think we need to keep an eye on Windows users usage patterns/habits; there
may be an opportunity here, especially when it comes to the installer.
Regards,
- Joel
