X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Vista-compatible?
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Organization:	http://groups.google.com
Lines:	62
Message-ID:	<1ce4ad0c-442e-421e-acb7-0e8abf5ffb3d@f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
References:	<7705c9030901110150i372286a6r4a363842638a0a21 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	65.13.115.246
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	posting.google.com 1232773422 19858 127.0.0.1 (24 Jan 2009 05:03:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Sat, 24 Jan 2009 05:03:42 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info:	f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
User-Agent:	G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5)
	Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id n0O5F2XU031048
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Jan 11, 3:50 am, "Blair Campbell" <blaird DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> Are there updated packages since 2006 available with better support
> for vista?  

None that I'm aware of, at least nothing that uses any Vista-specific
fixes.

> Most of the binaries I'm using (2.04-compiled) are from
> around 2006

Yeah, like most of us, I don't think we recompile srcs with latest
2.04 CVS, just use stock binaries built with stock 2.04.    ;-)

> and I often run into problems with configure scripts (they
> won't run and display weird messages).  Also, with one particular file
> in ncurses (lib_mouse.c) it'll complain that it's missing the
> definition for KG_SHFITL, where in reality the file contains no such
> word, rather it is KG_SHIFTL.  If I define KG_SHFITL, though, it seems
> to compile.  

Sounds like a typo in "configure". And I never did understand exactly
what or why you were messing with ncurses. Just wanting to build the
lib or something else? (PDcurses demos build with DJGPP or OpenWatcom,
so that's good, at least.)

> I edited the registry to allow for more DPMI memory than 32MB

That DPMI hack (SP1 only) sure is nice. I've read that 12 firms
participated in the DPMI spec "back in the day", and yet did any of
them complain when Vista broke it?? I just find it hard to believe
that people love certain APIs and hate others or that they always
invent newer / better (but incompatible) ones. Oh well .... Just seems
weird for a closed source commercial atmosphere to implode on itself
by making software incompatible (although having separate C++ compiles
for different Linux kernels is annoying too). It's like everything has
to be rewritten from scratch every five years, and we must all throw
all the "old" stuff away. (Why??)

The only issue I saw was recently was Vista being dumb about REL_ALLOC
in GNU Emacs, so Vista needed SYSTEM_MALLOC instead (although
rebuilding on Vista for Vista just caused me lots of strange problems,
so I lost interest although I literally tried hundreds of times).

Eli Z. uses XP, CWS only uses VAX/VMS and Win2k or maybe XP (although
he is migrating his coworkers to Vista eventually). DJ, I dunno, Linux
only?? (delorie.com was hosted on dual PIII, last I heard.) So, short
of anybody actually *using* Vista, fixes will be hard to come by.

The problem is that Win7 shares the same Vista kernel / internals, so
things won't necessarily get better (although NT 4.0 -> Win2k -> WinXP
was incremental improvements). Win7 will be 6.1 (whereas Vista is NT
6.0). The potential specs I saw for Win7 were "supposed" to be the
same as Vista:  1 GB RAM, 128 MB VRAM, etc. All I've heard is that the
taskbar is revamped, and it boots up faster. Whoopee.

P.S. Vista's UAC also causes problems for some programs (but only when
run via .BAT, not makefiles):   UPDATE.EXE, PATCH.EXE (and making a
symlink is tricky:   DJUPDATE and DJPATCH won't work but DJUPDAT and
DJPATC will ... doh, stupid hardcoded filenames).

- Raw text -