Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	N8TM AT aol DOT com
Message-ID:	<57.210e428.25ddd4ba@aol.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:48:26 EST
Subject:	Re: Is Cygwin 1.0 compatible with Windows 2000
	ProfessionalWorkstation ?
To:	corinna AT vinschen DOT de, michel DOT debar AT fundp DOT ac DOT be
CC:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Unknown (No Version)

In a message dated Thu, 17 Feb 2000  5:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de> writes:

> 
> Yes.
> 
> Corinna
> 
> 
> 
> --
But I don't reproduce the same bugs on W2K RC2 as on NT4SP5, running identical cygwin installations and tests (i.e. a few bugs from NT4 disappeared on W2K, with RC2 better than beta 3).  Not to mention that W2K runs scripts much faster than NT4.

Tim
tprince AT computer DOT org



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -