Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/23/17:09:49
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 03:56:39AM +0700, Alexander J. Herrmann wrote:
>
>Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 21 15:09, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Corinna said [in thread entitled "Windows 95 support ?"]
>>>>
>>>>>Just the setup tool has some problem, apparently. Cygwin still runs
>>>>>on 95,
>>>>
>>>>> which will probably change at one point, since it's getting
>>incredibly
>>>>> awkward to support it.
>>
>>>>I've a related question: how "pleasant" must the user experience be on
>>>>older operating systems? Specifically, my [still in ITP state] port of
>>>
>>>
>>>Think along the lines of "it's the OSes fault, not mine", and you'll
>>>feel better immediately.
>>>
>>>>Sleep(40)!!
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>>It would also work on older OS's -- but every invocation would incur a
>>>>40 second delay. Which is really *mean*. I'm not sure I'm ready for
>>>
>>>
>>>Wouldn't that be a 40 *milli*second delay?
>>
>>
>>Yes, you are correct. You know, I had actually tested this (by
>>inverting the test on whether LoadLibary/GetProcAddress found the
>>GetConsoleWindow() function) on my winXP box.
>
>Sleep(n) big 'S' makes n second delays (Windoze) while sleep(n) make n
>millisecond delays and beside this you got usleep on some systems.
I'm not sure why you're chiming in here after Chuck and Corinna clarified
things but you seem to have gotten it exactly wrong above.
See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/sleep.asp
cgf
--
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 -