Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: N8TM AT aol DOT com
Message-ID: <57.210e428.25ddd4ba@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:48:26 EST
Subject: Re: Is Cygwin 1.0 compatible with Windows 2000
	ProfessionalWorkstation ?
To: corinna AT vinschen DOT de, michel DOT debar AT fundp DOT ac DOT be
CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)

In a message dated Thu, 17 Feb 2000  5:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de> writes:

> 
> Yes.
> 
> Corinna
> 
> 
> 
> --
But I don't reproduce the same bugs on W2K RC2 as on NT4SP5, running identical cygwin installations and tests (i.e. a few bugs from NT4 disappeared on W2K, with RC2 better than beta 3).  Not to mention that W2K runs scripts much faster than NT4.

Tim
tprince AT computer DOT org



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com