X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:09:38 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Support for older OS's Message-ID: <20060423210938.GA8711@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <1145646573 DOT 7213 DOT 259631146 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> <20060421204231 DOT GB27541 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <444BE7F2 DOT 6060209 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <444BEA07 DOT 5090704 AT gmail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <444BEA07.5090704@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 03:56:39AM +0700, Alexander J. Herrmann wrote: > >Charles Wilson wrote: > >>Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >>>On Apr 21 15:09, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>Corinna said [in thread entitled "Windows 95 support ?"] >>>> >>>>>Just the setup tool has some problem, apparently. Cygwin still runs >>>>>on 95, >>>> >>>>> which will probably change at one point, since it's getting >>incredibly >>>>> awkward to support it. >> >>>>I've a related question: how "pleasant" must the user experience be on >>>>older operating systems? Specifically, my [still in ITP state] port of >>> >>> >>>Think along the lines of "it's the OSes fault, not mine", and you'll >>>feel better immediately. >>> >>>>Sleep(40)!! >>> >>> ^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>>>It would also work on older OS's -- but every invocation would incur a >>>>40 second delay. Which is really *mean*. I'm not sure I'm ready for >>> >>> >>>Wouldn't that be a 40 *milli*second delay? >> >> >>Yes, you are correct. You know, I had actually tested this (by >>inverting the test on whether LoadLibary/GetProcAddress found the >>GetConsoleWindow() function) on my winXP box. > >Sleep(n) big 'S' makes n second delays (Windoze) while sleep(n) make n >millisecond delays and beside this you got usleep on some systems. I'm not sure why you're chiming in here after Chuck and Corinna clarified things but you seem to have gotten it exactly wrong above. See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/sleep.asp cgf -- 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/