delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/06/02/18:59:18

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: "Gerrit P. Haase" <gerrit AT familiehaase DOT de>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Drop Win9x support? (was: Serious performance problems)
In-Reply-To: <429F8915.8000904@familiehaase.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0506021853460.23568@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <14CEE0B69DBDFC41A192613D8B4098CA016595AB AT XCH-CORP DOT staktek DOT com> <429F8915 DOT 8000904 AT familiehaase DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

> Terry Dabbs wrote:
>
> > No!
> >
> > I am supporting applications requiring cygwin on '95 and '98 that are
> > not going away anytime soon.
>
> I have not seen any Win98/ME PC since about 5 years, we're using NT all
> over the place.  As I started to work in this business NT4 was current,
> then W2K came up, now every new box is delivered with XP, all NT based
> systems.  I cannot imagine why someone with a PC not older than 5 years
> doesn't want to spend 100$ to buy an XP license.  It should always be
> possible to run every Win98/ME binary on XP.  I was able to run some
> old PC Games on XP which I couldn't run for about 5 years because the
> lack of Win98 in my location.  The XP system supports running those old
> binaries.  And if you really need Cygwin for Win98, you may use 1.5.x
> forever.  As I have heard, there are still people out there who are
> running NT4 Server, for about ten years now, using Cygwin B20 since
> 1999;)  It is fitting their needs, so why should they upgrade?

Just a datapoint.  WinXP does *not* run all the programs that Win9x does.
There are ways around it, but some of the old DOS stuff interacts much
better with 9x, especially those that need to manipulate the video
framebuffer directly.  I'm not saying that Cygwin programs do that, but
this is one of the reasons to keep 9x around, and I, for one, do use
Cygwin on my old 9x machine.  And I would like to see the new features in
that Cygwin installation (the biggest problem, of course, isn't Cygwin
features per se, but packages -- the newly built ones require newer Cygwin
versions).

Again, IMO, it would be ok to make Win9x functionality slower, external to
the Cygwin DLL, etc, etc, but I don't think dropping it altogether is a
good idea.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019