Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/05/03:00:25
"Ron Aaron" <ron AT mrrrossbayeng DOT com> wrote:
>Dave Pearson wrote in message ...
>>On 3 Feb 1998 20:46:00 -0700, Smith A. Cat <imbe AT primenet DOT com> wrote:
>>
>>> You should NOT use the DOS binary in Win95 except when rebooting into DOS
>>> mode.
>>
>>Any reason why?
>
>
>Yes:
> a) because 16-bit exe support is not excellent under Win95
First of all, I'm not sure what you're referring to here; Win95 runs
16-bit DOS programs just fine. Second of all, the announcement
referred to the DJGPP-compiled DOS version of Vim, and that is fully
32-bit anyway (although a separate 16-bit DOS version does exist).
> b) because long-file-names aren't supported in the DOS version
The DJGPP version _does_ support long filenames under Win95.
> c) because the Win32 GUI version is much nicer to use under Win32
>systems
This is a matter of personal preference, surely?
> d) because the 16-bit version has inherent limits on file sizes, etc...
As noted above, "16-bit version" and "DOS version" are not synonymous.
The 32-bit DOS version should not have any more memory limitations
than the Win32 version.
So, the question remains: why not use the DOS binary under Win95?
True, it doesn't provide the GUI support, but that hardly seems
grounds for such an emphatic warning against its use. Are there some
compatibility issues not mentioned in the announcement?
Incidently, I just tried accessing the URL given in the announcement
( http://www.primenet.com/~imbe/vim/index.html ) and got a 404 error
("Sorry! You have reached a page that is unavailable or does not
exist.").
- Raw text -