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
Message-ID:	<429FB27F.8030907@familiehaase.de>
Date:	Fri, 03 Jun 2005 03:29:35 +0200
From:	"Gerrit P. Haase" <gerrit AT familiehaase DOT de>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Drop Win9x support? (was: Serious performance problems)
References:	<14CEE0B69DBDFC41A192613D8B4098CA016595AB AT XCH-CORP DOT staktek DOT com> <429F8915 DOT 8000904 AT familiehaase DOT de> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0506021853460 DOT 23568 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.61.0506021853460.23568@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> 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).

DOS is not Win98, what is DOS BTW?


> 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.

Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=

--
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 -