From: 71231 DOT 104 AT compuserve DOT com (Richard Slobod) Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: announce: VIM5 release "v" for DOS Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 06:20:03 GMT Organization: Warwick Online Lines: 43 Message-ID: <34d8041a.2758168@news.warwick.net> References: <34D7E715 DOT 5719 AT primenet DOT com> <6baj0g$lbf AT news DOT microsoft DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: m205-19.warwick.net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk "Ron Aaron" wrote: >Dave Pearson wrote in message ... >>On 3 Feb 1998 20:46:00 -0700, Smith A. Cat wrote: >> >>> You should NOT use the DOS binary in Win95 except when rebooting into DOS >>> mode. >> >>Any reason why? > > >Yes: > a) because 16-bit exe support is not excellent under Win95 First of all, I'm not sure what you're referring to here; Win95 runs 16-bit DOS programs just fine. Second of all, the announcement referred to the DJGPP-compiled DOS version of Vim, and that is fully 32-bit anyway (although a separate 16-bit DOS version does exist). > b) because long-file-names aren't supported in the DOS version The DJGPP version _does_ support long filenames under Win95. > c) because the Win32 GUI version is much nicer to use under Win32 >systems This is a matter of personal preference, surely? > d) because the 16-bit version has inherent limits on file sizes, etc... As noted above, "16-bit version" and "DOS version" are not synonymous. The 32-bit DOS version should not have any more memory limitations than the Win32 version. So, the question remains: why not use the DOS binary under Win95? True, it doesn't provide the GUI support, but that hardly seems grounds for such an emphatic warning against its use. Are there some compatibility issues not mentioned in the announcement? Incidently, I just tried accessing the URL given in the announcement ( http://www.primenet.com/~imbe/vim/index.html ) and got a 404 error ("Sorry! You have reached a page that is unavailable or does not exist.").