From:	"Tim Nicholson" <djgpp_mail AT gizzy DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: To those of you who use NT/2000, we salute you
Date:	Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:20:31 -0000
Organization:	Skyforce avionics Limited
Lines:	49
Message-ID:	<91lo3k$6t2$1@neptunium.btinternet.com>
References:	<3B%_5.7848$IY2 DOT 545636 AT typhoon DOT mn DOT mediaone DOT net> <dng%5.2336$201 DOT 635967 AT news DOT uswest DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	213.122.222.161
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

My company had abandoned windows as a viable platform for any software that
has to be certified as being 'fit for form and function' The totally
unpredictable nature of the whole Windows family (Including Win 2000) makes
it impossible to get any form of certification from the bodies that regulate
our industry (Aerospace).

Contrary to popular believe, Windows 2000 is extremely unstable and could
never be used for any form of critical system.

DOS, due to its deterministic nature is a dream when it comes to proving
what is happening on and instruction by instruction basis - DOS has a long
life left in it and, now that packages like DJGPP are utilising the full
power of the machine (In general DOS code runs much faster than any C++
equivalent for Windows, simply because it has 100% of the processors
attention), I think that more and more bespoke software writers will move
back to a stable world where GPF's are the fault of the programmer and not
some virtual machine that has more bugs than the average ants nest.

Long Live DOS

Tim
"dragonsong" <net DOT aros AT sueko> wrote in message
news:dng%5.2336$201 DOT 635967 AT news DOT uswest DOT net...
> > Anywho, as a shameless plug, move to a real OS -- FreeBSD. :c)
> >
>
> Or use what's in almost all ways a better compiling environment (for gcc
on
> Win*) anyhow: cygwin. Works fine in Win2k.
>
> I'm not sure why you'd need to use djgpp for Win2k or NT. Just like you
> said, these operating systems no longer support true 16-bit DOS. (Thank
> God.) Why would you want a compiler for a 16-bit environment when your OS
is
> native 32-bit? Or if you're compiling executables that will later be run
in
> a 16-bit environment, dual-boot between NT/2k and Win9x (or even better,
DOS
> 6.22a). If you're just looking for a nice port of gcc on Win*, and your OS
> is NT or 2k, use cygwin. The only thing cygwin doesn't do as well as (or
> better than) djgpp is run in true DOS. But since you're never going to do
> that anyhow in Win2k, that functionality is unnecessary.
>
> I'm probably missing something really obvious here...?
>
>
>

- Raw text -