X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <498DEF46.20601@veritech.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:29:58 -0500
From: "Lee D. Rothstein" <l1ee057 AT veritech DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 64 bit system compatibility
References: <E5D3E84E75A82B48802CCA73CCD8E2BE01FE99B7 AT cernxchg47 DOT cern DOT ch>
In-Reply-To: <E5D3E84E75A82B48802CCA73CCD8E2BE01FE99B7@cernxchg47.cern.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.0.1
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Giacomo Bruno wrote:
> Hello, 
>
> I just moved to a new machine with a 64 bit windows vista os . I wanted
> to install and run cygwin. While the installation process run to the
> end, programs like emacs xterm and xwin do not work. I also  do not get
> a home directory when I run for the first time cygwin (I thought it
> would be created automatically). I just read on the cygwin FAQ that 
> "..As far as we know no one is working on a native 64 bit version of
> Cygwin.."

> I interpret it like my system is unsupported and I should not expect the
> above mentioned programs from the current version of cygwin to work out
> of the box. Is that correct? Is it planned to release a Vista 64-bit
> compatible cygwin version? When?
> Actually I'd be happy if I managed to have at least ssh, scp and xterm
> work. Is it just a matter of recompiling them with a proper compiler or
> it is more than that?
I have had much better luck (to say the least) with Vista 64b and Cygwin
than I ever did with Vista 32b, including but not limited to X windows.

BTB, at random intervals over the last several years X has been
problematical with XP, and Vista 32 b. So far with Yaakov's resurrection
of X, things are humming.

Having said that I've adopted 'mintty' full force, avoid 'xterm', and 
only use
X when I have a graphical app that requires it.

Thanks, Yaakov.

--
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/