comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: IDL Windows vs Linux
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: IDL Windows vs Linux [message #8725 is a reply to message #8716] Wed, 16 April 1997 00:00 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
David R. Klassen is currently offline  David R. Klassen
Messages: 14
Registered: December 1996
Junior Member
Charles Martin wrote:
> My question is: is there any advantage to buying the windows version?
> It is not uncommon for me to save my results to a graphics file and then
> load those results into Word or Powerpoint. Would I have any trouble
> accessing the Linux files from Windows?

The only advantage I can see to getting the Windows version is that you
will not have to reboot when you want to work with Word or Powerpoint.
However, Windows cannot read Linux disk file systems. The option would
be to have Linux write to the Windows/DOS partition when it outputs the
files. I think Linux can now not only write to FAT disks but also FAT32
and even NTFS (but I'm not 100% sure of that).

There is a major disadvantage with the Win32s version of IDL4.0+ and
that
is it does NOT properly handle long filenames. If a routine is in a
file
with a non-8.3 name IDL will NOT be able to access it. This makes
collaborating with UNIX IDL programmers a bit of a hassle. RSI claims
that
the new 5.0 for Windows will have full long filename support.

--
David R. Klassen
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Wyoming
Box 3905 University Station
Laramie WY 82071
http://faraday.uwyo.edu/grads/dklassen/
drk@uwyo.edu
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: IDL not a typewriter?
Next Topic: Deconvolution

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 17:39:40 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00553 seconds