Date:	Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:12:18 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andrew Jones <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: <Damian Y> Re: It's back, but the ...
In-Reply-To:	<gUYq4.53837$45.2820058@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000220111146.25009R-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Andrew Jones wrote:

> > Then please explain to me why do Watcom programs behave much worse on
> > Windows than DJGPP programs.
> 
> Care to cite some examples?

Search the DJGPP mail archives.  My personal experience is even worse
than what you will find there, but since I think this discussion
became unconstructive long ago, I won't get into details.

Watcom's relative instability does not surprise me, btw: it uses the
nearptr hack by default, so protection is less effective.

> I've had more problems with DJGPP compiled executables than Watcom

It figures ;-)

- Raw text -