Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:09:23 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Windows ME and DJGPP
In-Reply-To:	<94k3dc$lf9$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010124100906.25819D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 23 Jan 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> Compared to both of these, ME is a pain in the lower back as it comes
> to advanced DJGPP usage. Just as an example, you'll have no way of
> using the full power of the YAMD memory debugger on an ME system
> without applying that highly unofficial patch to re-enable the real
> MS-DOS sleeping inside it.

I don't see how this example is really enough to warrant the verdict
that Windows ME is ``a pain in the lower back as it comes to advanced
DJGPP usage.''  Most DJGPP users on Windows never go to DOS mode, and
thus don't have the benefits of YAMD anyway.  People who need plain
DOS will arrange a dual-boot system and be done with it.

(Btw, is it possible on Windows ME to switch to the so-called ``DOS
Mode'' by setting properties of a DOS program or the DOS box?  If so,
it might be an easier way of getting to plain DOS without patching
anything.)

The question that I suspect is of interest to most readers of this
news group is: Is Windows ME a good platform for _normal_ (as opposed
to ``advanced'') DJGPP usage pattern, which involves building and
debugging programs by usual means.  I think the answer is YES.  I
think Windows ME is as good as other Windows 9X systems, more or less.
I don't see anything in this thread (or elsewhere) that would be an
evidence to the contrary.  If someone does, please speak up.

- Raw text -