Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matt <matt AT use DOT net>
X-Sender:  <matt AT cesium DOT clock DOT org>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Windows 95 working again?
In-Reply-To: <20010808110558.B4406@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.30.0108101649340.7373-100000@cesium.clock.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> >Is win98 more functional than win95 in the respects you mention?
>
> Windows 98/Me == Windows 95

win98/ME has a number of highly useful APIs added, as well as numerous
existing APIs that work much more reliably. The VMM and numerous other
things wre reworked in OSR2 (the basis for win98), but I wasn't sure
if you were talking about win95 950, 950a, or 950b (OSR2). If 950b and/or
win98 don't work any better than 950/950a, then please forgive my comment.

This is what I meant, sorry for being vague.


--
http://www.clock.org/~matt