Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Terry Dabbs wrote:
No!
I am supporting applications requiring cygwin on '95 and '98 that are
not going away anytime soon.
I have not seen any Win98/ME PC since about 5 years, we're using NT all
over the place. As I started to work in this business NT4 was current,
then W2K came up, now every new box is delivered with XP, all NT based
systems. I cannot imagine why someone with a PC not older than 5 years
doesn't want to spend 100$ to buy an XP license. It should always be
possible to run every Win98/ME binary on XP. I was able to run some
old PC Games on XP which I couldn't run for about 5 years because the
lack of Win98 in my location. The XP system supports running those old
binaries. And if you really need Cygwin for Win98, you may use 1.5.x
forever. As I have heard, there are still people out there who are
running NT4 Server, for about ten years now, using Cygwin B20 since
1999;) It is fitting their needs, so why should they upgrade?
Just a datapoint. WinXP does *not* run all the programs that Win9x does.
There are ways around it, but some of the old DOS stuff interacts much
better with 9x, especially those that need to manipulate the video
framebuffer directly. I'm not saying that Cygwin programs do that, but
this is one of the reasons to keep 9x around, and I, for one, do use
Cygwin on my old 9x machine. And I would like to see the new features in
that Cygwin installation (the biggest problem, of course, isn't Cygwin
features per se, but packages -- the newly built ones require newer Cygwin
versions).
DOS is not Win98, what is DOS BTW?
Again, IMO, it would be ok to make Win9x functionality slower, external to
the Cygwin DLL, etc, etc, but I don't think dropping it altogether is a
good idea.
Gerrit
--
=^..^=
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
