From: Charles Sandmann Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Problem with DJGPP on WIN 2000 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:05:08 CDT Organization: Rice University, Houston TX Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3d5de794.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> References: <20020815215715 DOT 50780 DOT qmail AT web40105 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: clio.rice.edu X-Trace: joe.rice.edu 1029564922 19320 128.42.105.3 (17 Aug 2002 06:15:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rice DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2002 06:15:22 GMT X-NewsEditor: ED-1.5.9 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com > This is correct and true !! I force the output of > go32-v2 to file like that ( go32-v2 > myfile ) and > that is the only way I can see the results. This is very unusual - I have not see it on dozens of Win2K systems I've used DJGPP with. I suspect that some software you have installed on the system is causing a conflict. You said you also see the problem on Windows NT, which is also unusual - so I suspect you have something common in both installed configurations causing the problem. There is a similar open bug (00327) open in the bug tracking system reported for Windows NT - but this has not been reproducible - so we are pretty sure it has something to do with some other installed software. Finding what is the conflict would good to document. This is only the second report I've seen of this problem in 2 years (with the first being the open bug). > I run CMD.EXE date Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 8:00:00 AM. > the 'ls' is: > -rwxr-xr-x 1 dosuser root 121344 May 26 2000 ls.exe This binary is too old for Windows 2000 to work reliably - all binary .exe images in your djgpp directory should be dated December 2001 or later for reliable Windows 2000 (or XP) operation. I don't think this is the cause of your output problem, but it would not hurt to make sure you have the most recent versions. Updated versions are available from ftp.simtel.net > You are right when I use command.com date Tuesday, > May 08, 2001, 8:00:00 AM it is running OK. An interesting observation - and a workaround. I can't explain it. You might try reducing the environment size (unSET'ing variables), disabling virus checkers and turning off non-native services to see if anything helps.