1. RE: What are Win2000 Diferance
- Posted by Ron Tarrant <rtarrant at sympatico.ca> Sep 29, 2002
- 414 views
Tony Steward wrote: > What do I need to be aware of for my progs to run on win2000 and I can > only > test on win98se. > > I have found that result variables need to be atoms as integers will > cause > crashes. Are you sure about this? I haven't really noticed anything like this with Windows 2000, but I might not be doing what you're doing. Could you supply a small example with alternatives for win2k and win98, please? Thanks, Tony. -Ron T.
2. RE: What are Win2000 Diferance
- Posted by Brian Broker <bkb at cnw.com> Sep 30, 2002
- 444 views
Actually, this should be the case with all Windows programs. It's just that you'll hit this issue more frequently on an NT based system. I can't think of anything other than that. You can always ask for testers if you want to be sure... -- Brian Tony Steward wrote: > Hi All, > What do I need to be aware of for my progs to run on win2000 and I can > only > test on win98se. > > I have found that result variables need to be atoms as integers will > cause > crashes. > > What else? > > Thanks > Tony > >
3. RE: What are Win2000 Diferance
- Posted by Ron Tarrant <rtarrant at sympatico.ca> Sep 30, 2002
- 419 views
Which results are you guys talking about? I've never run into this (at least, if I did, I didn't recognize it). -Ron T. Brian Broker wrote: > Actually, this should be the case with all Windows programs. It's just > that you'll hit this issue more frequently on an NT based system. I > can't think of anything other than that. You can always ask for testers > > if you want to be sure... > > -- Brian > > Tony Steward wrote: > > Hi All, > > What do I need to be aware of for my progs to run on win2000 and I can > > only > > test on win98se. > > > > I have found that result variables need to be atoms as integers will > > cause > > crashes. > > > > What else? > > > > Thanks > > Tony > > > >
4. RE: What are Win2000 Diferance
- Posted by Ron Tarrant <rtarrant at sympatico.ca> Oct 01, 2002
- 424 views
Oh, right. I remember hearing about the 16-bit int used by Windows. At the time I was using an Amiga where the int was 32-bit; I've always thought of int's as being 32-bit and that's why it didn't register. Thanks, David. -Ron T. David Cuny wrote: > Under Win95, most pointers returned in Win32Lib tended to be low memory > addresses. So if you wrote a code like: > > int myVar > myVar = getSomeWin32Pointer() > > under Win95, it would tend to work, because the addresses returned were > small > enough that they would fit into an int. It happened to me quite often: > I'd > test a program under Win95 and it would run fine, but under WinNT, it > would > crash. > > The error under WinNT would be attempting to store a large address into > an > int. That's because WinNT (and WinMe, Win2000 and even Wine under Linux) > > would tend to hand back pointer addresses that were too large to store > in an > int. The proper way to code the example would have been to use an atom > instead of an int: > > atom myVar > > So basically, it was *always* an error to use an int, but because Win95 > tended to parcel out lower memory addresses, it was less likely to crash > > under Win95. > > -- David Cuny > > -- David Cuny > >