Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 9/4/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news / gmx.net> wrote:
>>If you mean the command line shell: cygwin - there's even a Ruby package
>>that you can install.
> 
> 
> That's not a good replacement. It's substandard, at best.
> 
> Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
> I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
> cygwin/bash on Windows.
> 
> Cygwin is a wholly unacceptable answer for a variety of reasons, but
> mostly because it tries to impose a totally different way of thinking
> on a system that doesn't map well that way.

This depends a *lot* on whether you are coming from the unix world or 
from the windows world.  Running an xterm or rxvt (or even tabbed 
mrxvt's) from cygwin is as good as running it from linux.  You have the 
standard X-windows copy (i.e. highlight) and paste (i.e. middle mouse 
button or shift-insert from the keyboard).  Access to the standard unix 
editors - emacs, vim, nedit.

The cmd.exe window on XP, while better than dos-based Windows, doesn't 
provide a decent copy-paste mechanism (and yes, I know about quick-edit 
and insert mode) nor allow useful fonts, as well as many other short 
comings.

If you're from the Windows world and have no plans to go to posix-land, 
then maybe one of the other windows suggestions is what you're looking 
for (although, please don't stop at cmd.exe).  If, however, you're 
either from the 'real' world or planning on going there any time soon, I 
*highly* recommend Cygwin.

	HTH,
	  Charles