[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Sep 2002 07:11:37 +0200 (IST) |
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> > Windows 98 SE is still a very popular version of Windows (I,
> > for one, prefer it to both Windows/ME and W2K/XP).
>
> Curious. I find both NT 4.0 and W2K to be exceptionally stable (XP is
> less so IMHO).
I wasn't thinking about stability (although my Windows 98SE machine stays
up for months on end without crashing). I was talking about usability
and back-compatibility. Too many old programs don't work on W2K/XP, and
too many little but valuable features are unavailable there but available
in 98SE.
> Well, yes, but supporting building on W2K/XP does not pose any problem
> because CMD.EXE is quite more powerful than COMMAND.COM :)
I think the real problem with that is not COMMAND.COM per se (after all,
the MS-DOS build uses _only_ COMMAND.COM and doesn't have any trouble),
but rather the need to support COMMAND.COM, CMD.EXE, and the Cygwin/MinGW
environment at the same time and with the same Makefile's.
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/09/01
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/09/01
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/09/04
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/09/05
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/09/05
- Re: Broken lisp/Makefile.w32-in, Andreas Schwab, 2002/09/05