From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 27 11:54:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA23250 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23243 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA08885; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:49:36 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199704271849.LAA08885@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: VFAT 32 support in msdosfs To: gibbs@plutotech.com (Justin T. Gibbs) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:49:36 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, gibbs@plutotech.com, michaelh@cet.co.jp, joa@kuebart.stuttgart.netsurf.de, sysop@mixcom.com, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199704262057.OAA00832@pluto.plutotech.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at Apr 26, 97 03:56:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Try almost any foobarW API and it will fail. Don't use the ones which aren't on both platforms. > Win95 will also not > automatically convert between UNICODE and ANSI strings when a message > passes between windows that use different string types. Well, neither will NT. It seems to not have the problem because there's very little ANSI in NT. > 95% of Office97 uses UNICODE internally, but serious hoops were jumped > through in order to convert strings to DB or ANSI so that it could run > without too many features "losing" after internationalization under > Win95. Why do I know this? Because I had to implement some of these > hoops while working on the PowerPoint97 project. That just the stupid "code page" backward compatability crap, may it rot in hell. If they didn't come out with code that could run on win32s on win 3.1, they wouldn't have to jump through the DB/ANSI hoops. > Win95 is the bane of everyone's existance, including the developers > at Microsoft. Backward compatability is just a fact of Microsoft's life. If they were not married to their bane, they wouldn't have to carry it around. There's no accounting for management stupidity in any company. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.