Mail Archives: cygwin/1996/11/26/18:25:03
Whilst it is may be questionable using Windows 95 as a development platform,
it should be fully supported as a target platform. The sheer number of
Windows 95 vs Windows NT installations makes 95 support as a target platform
a must. I don't want to produce software that only runs under NT.
At work I use Windows NT, but at home I use Windows 95. The machine at home
does not have enough memory to run NT. The machine at home crashes more
often, but usually as a result of some buggy software. I want the cygwin32
runtime environment to work correctly under both NT and 95, which means
handling the differences and limitations of each of the Win32 environments.
I accept that software crashes under Windows 95 can cause the operating
system to fail. That shouldn't rule out Windows 95 as a target platform.
Since the development environment is hosted using the same (cygwin32)
environment as executables created by the development environment, it
follows that the development environment should be operational under Windows 95.
At 10:54 26/11/1996 +0300, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
>The more common question - should we take in mind Windows 95 as developer's
>and cygwin32-supported platform? Do You like to press reset button every
>hour?-) Does we really need to search for work-arounds due to Windows
>95-specific bugs and misfeatures? For examle, link() syscall in cygwin.dll
>just copies file to another. Windows NT allows to use NTFS's hard links.
>CreateProcess() system call requires .exe extension under Windows 95,
>opposite to NT. You can't to enter non-US characters in bash under 95, but
>can with NT, etc...
>
>
>Sergey Okhapkin
>Moscow, Russia
Of course only NTFS supports hard links - network file systems don't, nor do
FAT partitions. I don't want unnecessary restrictions on where my software
will function correctly.
Trevor Yann
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".
- Raw text -