X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: Windows 95 support ? Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:16:18 +0100 Message-ID: <043501c667c2$ccf989e0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <444D0635.2060306@ukf.net> 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 24 April 2006 18:09, Max Bowsher wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> Perhaps, but as long as the Cygwin DLL etc do support 95, it seems that >> Setup should be self contained and not require W95 users (all dozen of them >> ;-)) to hunt down DLLs all over the internet. Perhaps I'll whip up a >> regular Setup installer which includes the necessary redistributables. > > Why bother? > > To put this in perspective, this affects only users who are using > Windows 95 original edition (*not* any OSR version), No, it affects Win95 original AND OSR1 and 2, but not OSR2.5, which came with IE4. At least according to the earlier posts in this thread, anyway. > *AND* have not > installed a non-ancient Internet Explorer version. This condition should read "AND have not installed ANY ie version ever" > For this tiny minority, is it *really* worth the confusion of a separate > Cygwin setup bundle, as compared with the alternative of just writing a > FAQ entry explaining how to get the necessary prerequisites? I agree with you here. There's not an awful lot of machines that have never had IE on them. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/