January 26, 2012
We need a decision on this topic.

Actively maintaining support for new features?

Cleaning out Win9x code?
January 26, 2012
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 19:21:53 Martin Nowak wrote:
> We need a decision on this topic.
> 
> Actively maintaining support for new features?
> 
> Cleaning out Win9x code?

There doesn't seem to be much support for continuing support of Win9x code, so
I think that we're going to axe it. I believe that the main reason that we've
had the Win9x support in the past is because Walter wanted it, and he's not
against removing it now - if nothing else because we don't have a way to test
it. Certainly, if the pull requests for removing Win9x support are solid, I'll
probably merge them in. I'd prefer that some Windows devs look at them first
though.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 27, 2012
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 00:24:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, I really think that we should say that we don't support pre-Win2K, and I'd like to say that we don't support pre-XP, but I don't think that it hurts us any to say that we support Win2K.

An example of system requirements for a .net application:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb964665
January 27, 2012
On Friday, January 27, 2012 20:46:17 Kagamin wrote:
> On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 00:24:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > So, I really think that we should say that we don't support pre-Win2K, and I'd like to say that we don't support pre-XP, but I don't think that it hurts us any to say that we support Win2K.
> 
> An example of system requirements for a .net application: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb964665

So, Win2K+, which is probably what we'll be doing. It should be noted, however, that that's a .NET 2.0 application, and they're up to at least 4 now, so I don't know how that affects things. In general though, as I understand it, there's very few API calls which are XP-specific. Win2K and Vista are where the biggest changes are. So, if you're supporting XP, you probably might as well support Win2K.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 28, 2012
On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 21:52:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, Win2K+, which is probably what we'll be doing. It should be noted, however, that that's a .NET 2.0 application

And it works on a good range of oses and does useful and pretty nifty things. And, you know, it will take ages before phobos could become comparable to .net framework 2.0.
January 28, 2012
I feel that libraries and especially compilers should support older systems. I don't like when a library or compiler limits what system my program can run on. I'm writing a GUI library in D, and I plan on supporting Windows 2000.

In this case, I don't mind dropping 95/98/Me support. They didn't have protected memory and being able to rely on the Unicode functions is great. Not to mention that MSDN no longer says what functions are available on 95/98/Me. But I hope that D will support Windows 2000 for a while.

January 28, 2012
On 1/28/12, Jordan Miner <jminer7@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I hope that D will
> support Windows 2000 for a while.

Aren't you already blocked with Win2000 support? http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024
January 30, 2012
On Saturday, 28 January 2012 at 21:39:32 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 1/28/12, Jordan Miner <jminer7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But I hope that D will
>> support Windows 2000 for a while.
>
> Aren't you already blocked with Win2000 support?
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024

I've been using D1 bundled with the last released version of Tango (so very old). It has been working with Windows 2000. But I plan on porting to D2 before long and hope that that bug is fixed by then. Looks like it will be.

Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home