From: N8TM AT aol DOT com Subject: Re: Problem with Win95 28 Jan 1999 00:50:50 -0800 Message-ID: <326a31e2.36afc2fe.cygnus.gnu-win32@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: glenn AT gs DOT fay DOT nc DOT us, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In a message dated 1/27/99 8:18:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, glenn AT gs DOT fay DOT nc DOT us writes: << > But I have problem with Win95. I involve makefile system to create > > a image and each time my attempts fail in different places furtheremore > > This seems to be a chronic problem, lots of things ahve been suggested > > If anyone has a better fix I'd love it. http://www.cygnus.com/ml/gnu-win32/1999-Jan/0484.html > I really don't want to got o win98, that would just breat everything > else... Absolutely. Until someone can explain to me in *detail* how to remove *all* remnants of Internet Explorer from Win98, I shall *never* *ever* downgrade from Win95B-noMSIE to Win98. >> I installed the cygwin binary snapshot which was posted Saturday. It also solves the "vfork: no more processes" but it changes the way drives are referred to by default from e.g. //d/ to d: Maybe it's better to use mounts always. It doesn't solve the problems with silent errors in running patch, which I usually do across drives. I found also that bash negotiates sh loops in Makefiles better than ash, both on NT and W95. Now I'm experimenting to see whether using -pipe consistently makes any difference. Is there any evidence that W98 would work better than W95, other than presumably not requiring the multiple steps to re-install with USB after it gets trashed? Once in a while we do run Encarta, and there's no getting away from MSIE there, but it doesn't get in the way otherwise. - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".