title: Advantages and disadvantages between zsh and emacs' (e)shell
body: <p>i have currently switched over to emacs (aquamacs) and am in the process of migrating my entire workflow into it one step at a time (org-mode, dired, etc., from pathfinder, notational velocity, etc.).</p>
  
  <p>the one thing i have yet to try (and seems to be the biggest obstacle thus far) is the built-in emacs shell (shell and/or eshell, here on referred to as "eshell"), due to having zsh setup perfectly for me. unsure if there is a way to essentially mirror/minimize the conversion/adaptation steps required.....</p>
  
  <p>my questions:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>can eshell be treated as a superset of zsh (i.e., eshell can do everything that zsh can, plus more)? i assume eshell lacks quite a bit compared to standard shells (bash, zsh, ksh, tcsh, etc.), otherwise it would be one of the standard shells (correct me if i'm wrong to think about it that way).</p></li>
  <li><p>what are the <strong>main</strong> limitations in using eshell over zsh? any folks switch from zsh to eshell and feel there are aspects of zsh you <em>critically</em> miss?</p></li>
  <li><p>anyone know of any links/resources doing a zsh/eshell feature comparison?</p></li>
  <li><p>further, any resources on making the change from one's usual shell to eshell? advice on workflow migration?</p></li>
  <li><p>if eshell isn't as "powerful" as zsh, then what advantage does eshell have over zsh? any tips and tricks on using eshell within emacs that would illustrate the time spent learning it?</p></li>
  <li><p>should one just give up on eshell and continue using zsh if it does everything i <em>think</em> i need? or are the few "power workflows" worth it (of which i'm not aware of)?</p></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>thnx in advance.</p>