X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.1 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: Stephan Mueller <Stephan.Mueller@microsoft.com>
To: Robin Walker <rdhw@cam.ac.uk>, "cygwin@cygwin.com" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: run-1.1.11-1
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:52:13 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:53:00 +0000
Message-ID: <450B91BCB17B4346BD55B6FE9215AFFF1D54669D@DF-M14-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <200908161558.n7GFwZ16011900@StraightRunning.com>   <4A883A1D.10109@cwilson.fastmail.fm>   <20090817084750.GP32408@calimero.vinschen.de>  <4A894A82.2010109@cornell.edu>   <20090817135758.GZ32408@calimero.vinschen.de>  <4385EB0C1AF79960A02CC313@qjunbur.quns.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4385EB0C1AF79960A02CC313@qjunbur.quns.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

Robin Walker wrote:
" --On 17 August 2009 15:57 +0200 Corinna Vinschen wrote:
" > The [...] as well as your startxwin.bat script don't work on W7.
" On any NT-class Windows, calling a *.bat file causes a 16-bit sub-system =
to=20
" be spawned, and the .bat file is interpreted within the 16-bit command=20
" interpreter.
"
" Given that Cygwin 1.7 no longer supports Windows 9x systems, it would=20
" probably make sense to convert as many .bat files as possible to .cmd=20
" files, so that they run within the normal 32-bit command interpreter.
"
" Does the startxwin.bat script work when it is renamed startxwin.cmd ?

This is certainly an interesting question, but I'm not sure I believe the
preceding claim.  In my main environment (shared by a few thousand other
users) we've gotten (for all the usual historical reasons) to a place
where we live in a cmd.exe world, yet most of our batch scripts have a
.bat extension.  We use NT-class Windows.  I have never seen the 16-bit
subsystem invoked here.  Other groups prefer the .cmd extension, but
I have, in many years, not seen a technical difference.

stephan(speaking for myself only, not my employer);


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

