Drop Win9x support? (was: Serious performance problems)
Mon Jun 6 06:45:00 GMT 2005
Yuk. Top-posting. Reformatted.
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Linda W wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 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.
> > Igor
> One wouldn't have to suffer much in performance...
> see http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2005-06/msg00087.html.
> Dynamic library linking is relatively cheap -- cheaper if the
> user has the option to pre-install the lib for their OS-flavor.
Yes, dynamic linking is fast. The implementation (emulation) of the Nt*
API for Win9x doesn't have to be. That was the potential performance
slowdown I was alluding to. This is one case where we'd rather have
functionality than performance.
|\ _,,,---,,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ email@example.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin