Why does Cygwin work better than Wine?
 

Well why does cygwin work better than wine, pretty simple?

Cygwin implements the Unix API: small, stable, and well documented. WINE implements the Windows API: huge, gets updated with new versions of Windows, and poorly documented.

The thing that always floors me about Wine is how unbelievably huge it is. It makes me rather cringe at the thought of having to be a programmer on the Windows team in Redmond. (Of course, it also gives me a healthy respect :hattip: for their skill and abilities.)

Don't we have a copy of the win API (#include <windows.h>)? I know there's more in it that just that (wincon.h). Don't most major applications also ship with their own libraries?

The header files only give the interface to the functions, they don't say how they work. For the Unix API there are multiple open source implementations. Having more than one implementation is important because it helps demonstrate what is specified by the API and what is just a quirk of the implementation. For Windows there is only one closed-source implementation so it's hard to see what's a bug and what's a feature.

Understatement of the year :rolleyes:

Windows applications rely a lot more on the stuff that ships with windows, because there is so much more installed by default.

I ment (wincon.h, etc.). And what about MSDN isn't that a mildly good piece of documentation on the WINAPI?

Not good enough, obviously.