From: "dragonsong" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: <3B%_5.7848$IY2 DOT 545636 AT typhoon DOT mn DOT mediaone DOT net> Subject: Re: To those of you who use NT/2000, we salute you Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:33:16 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.227.82.249 X-Trace: news.uswest.net 977113673 63.227.82.249 (Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:27:53 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:27:53 CST To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com > Anywho, as a shameless plug, move to a real OS -- FreeBSD. :c) > Or use what's in almost all ways a better compiling environment (for gcc on Win*) anyhow: cygwin. Works fine in Win2k. I'm not sure why you'd need to use djgpp for Win2k or NT. Just like you said, these operating systems no longer support true 16-bit DOS. (Thank God.) Why would you want a compiler for a 16-bit environment when your OS is native 32-bit? Or if you're compiling executables that will later be run in a 16-bit environment, dual-boot between NT/2k and Win9x (or even better, DOS 6.22a). If you're just looking for a nice port of gcc on Win*, and your OS is NT or 2k, use cygwin. The only thing cygwin doesn't do as well as (or better than) djgpp is run in true DOS. But since you're never going to do that anyhow in Win2k, that functionality is unnecessary. I'm probably missing something really obvious here...?