X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Rugxulo Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Vista-compatible? Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:03:42 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 62 Message-ID: <1ce4ad0c-442e-421e-acb7-0e8abf5ffb3d@f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> References: <7705c9030901110150i372286a6r4a363842638a0a21 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1232773422 19858 127.0.0.1 (24 Jan 2009 05:03:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 05:03:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com Injection-Info: f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id n0O5F2XU031048 Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hi, On Jan 11, 3:50 am, "Blair Campbell" wrote: > > Are there updated packages since 2006 available with better support > for vista?   None that I'm aware of, at least nothing that uses any Vista-specific fixes. > Most of the binaries I'm using (2.04-compiled) are from > around 2006 Yeah, like most of us, I don't think we recompile srcs with latest 2.04 CVS, just use stock binaries built with stock 2.04. ;-) > and I often run into problems with configure scripts (they > won't run and display weird messages).  Also, with one particular file > in ncurses (lib_mouse.c) it'll complain that it's missing the > definition for KG_SHFITL, where in reality the file contains no such > word, rather it is KG_SHIFTL.  If I define KG_SHFITL, though, it seems > to compile.   Sounds like a typo in "configure". And I never did understand exactly what or why you were messing with ncurses. Just wanting to build the lib or something else? (PDcurses demos build with DJGPP or OpenWatcom, so that's good, at least.) > I edited the registry to allow for more DPMI memory than 32MB That DPMI hack (SP1 only) sure is nice. I've read that 12 firms participated in the DPMI spec "back in the day", and yet did any of them complain when Vista broke it?? I just find it hard to believe that people love certain APIs and hate others or that they always invent newer / better (but incompatible) ones. Oh well .... Just seems weird for a closed source commercial atmosphere to implode on itself by making software incompatible (although having separate C++ compiles for different Linux kernels is annoying too). It's like everything has to be rewritten from scratch every five years, and we must all throw all the "old" stuff away. (Why??) The only issue I saw was recently was Vista being dumb about REL_ALLOC in GNU Emacs, so Vista needed SYSTEM_MALLOC instead (although rebuilding on Vista for Vista just caused me lots of strange problems, so I lost interest although I literally tried hundreds of times). Eli Z. uses XP, CWS only uses VAX/VMS and Win2k or maybe XP (although he is migrating his coworkers to Vista eventually). DJ, I dunno, Linux only?? (delorie.com was hosted on dual PIII, last I heard.) So, short of anybody actually *using* Vista, fixes will be hard to come by. The problem is that Win7 shares the same Vista kernel / internals, so things won't necessarily get better (although NT 4.0 -> Win2k -> WinXP was incremental improvements). Win7 will be 6.1 (whereas Vista is NT 6.0). The potential specs I saw for Win7 were "supposed" to be the same as Vista: 1 GB RAM, 128 MB VRAM, etc. All I've heard is that the taskbar is revamped, and it boots up faster. Whoopee. P.S. Vista's UAC also causes problems for some programs (but only when run via .BAT, not makefiles): UPDATE.EXE, PATCH.EXE (and making a symlink is tricky: DJUPDATE and DJPATCH won't work but DJUPDAT and DJPATC will ... doh, stupid hardcoded filenames).