EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Wed Feb 7 10:18:00 GMT 2007


On Jul 24 18:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Now that Microsoft has finally dropped support for Windows 98 and Me,
> we're going to drop 9x support as well.
> 
> What we're planning to do is this:
> 
> The complete net distribution gets copied to a new place.  This new
> place is the distro kept for people running 9x.  There is no further
> development in this distribution.  Maintainers may decide whether or not
> they apply fixes to the packages in the 9x distro, or keep it up to date
> at all.
> 
> The "normal" net distribution will continue to be the normal distro.  It
> might work on 9x, but there's no guarantee at all that it will continue
> to do so.
> 
> The setup tool (hello setup developers?) should either be split into two
> versions, one for 9x, one for NT.  Or the setup tool should choose the
> download path depending on the OS it's running on.  Or something
> completely different.
> 
> Comments?  Ideas?

Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.

- The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount.

- The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not
  available on all NT versions.  This would reduce the autoload overhead
  by about 90%.

- The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at
  least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests.  This would also have
  some positive effects on the performance.

- Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x.  So, when we switch
  over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a
  lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all.

You're all convinced, right?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list