Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <42A36092.4030109@tlinx.org> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:29:06 -0700 From: Linda W User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Drop Win9x support? (was: Serious performance problems) References: <14CEE0B69DBDFC41A192613D8B4098CA016595AB@XCH-CORP.staktek.com> <429F8915.8000904@familiehaase.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes One wouldn't have to suffer much in performance... see http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2005-06/msg00087.html. Dynamic library linking is relatively cheap -- cheaper if the user has the option to pre-install the lib for their OS-flavor. Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > Just a datapoint. WinXP does *not* run all the programs that Win9x does. > >There are ways around it, but some of the old DOS stuff interacts much >better with 9x, especially those that need to manipulate the video >framebuffer directly. I'm not saying that Cygwin programs do that, but >this is one of the reasons to keep 9x around, and I, for one, do use >Cygwin on my old 9x machine. And I would like to see the new features in >that Cygwin installation (the biggest problem, of course, isn't Cygwin >features per se, but packages -- the newly built ones require newer Cygwin >versions). > >Again, IMO, it would be ok to make Win9x functionality slower, external to >the Cygwin DLL, etc, etc, but I don't think dropping it altogether is a >good idea. > Igor > > -- 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/