Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:09:23 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Windows ME and DJGPP In-Reply-To: <94k3dc$lf9$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 23 Jan 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: > Compared to both of these, ME is a pain in the lower back as it comes > to advanced DJGPP usage. Just as an example, you'll have no way of > using the full power of the YAMD memory debugger on an ME system > without applying that highly unofficial patch to re-enable the real > MS-DOS sleeping inside it. I don't see how this example is really enough to warrant the verdict that Windows ME is ``a pain in the lower back as it comes to advanced DJGPP usage.'' Most DJGPP users on Windows never go to DOS mode, and thus don't have the benefits of YAMD anyway. People who need plain DOS will arrange a dual-boot system and be done with it. (Btw, is it possible on Windows ME to switch to the so-called ``DOS Mode'' by setting properties of a DOS program or the DOS box? If so, it might be an easier way of getting to plain DOS without patching anything.) The question that I suspect is of interest to most readers of this news group is: Is Windows ME a good platform for _normal_ (as opposed to ``advanced'') DJGPP usage pattern, which involves building and debugging programs by usual means. I think the answer is YES. I think Windows ME is as good as other Windows 9X systems, more or less. I don't see anything in this thread (or elsewhere) that would be an evidence to the contrary. If someone does, please speak up.