Re: Can I get my progs to run on WIN95
I've been sitting back taking this in for some time now.
MS has really gone a done it with all the releases of
Windows and I believe it's simply a ploy to underhand
development by keeping as many hands out of
pot as possible.
The newest "Windows XP" formally Whistler is intended
to monopolize the market even further.(opinion)
from: http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2685543,00.html
Windows XP is to Windows Media Player what Windows 98 was to Internet
Explorer.
Media Player has been dramatically improved and integrated into the OS.
Goodbye, Real Networks. (Hello, Justice Department?)
Most of the experts from Dobb's to Mickey Mouse are saying
"better write your code for Win2k to be any good a year from now."
I dont know personally about these because I currently run Win98
and have a CD of WinNT 5 which will never be installed on my Laptop
because of hardware restraints.Win32Lib 0.55.1 runs great on a Win98
system but, I'm not too sure about Win2K....
Maybe Win32Lib should ONLY support Future Windows OS's
Simply because there's no Money to be made until you finish a worthwhile
project and two, if the OS wont run it when it's finished, you just wasted
all the time it took programming the damn thing.
Besides, it will probably be next year before Win32Lib reaches V 1.0
and the Euphoria Translator will be held up by the Open Watcom release
(Robert said that Watcom was the only compiler 100% compatible)
Relying on others is sometimes frustrating but the people who bitch about it
well, their just wasteing their breathe aren't they?
Euman
----- Original Message -----
From: <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 19:37
Subject: RE: Can I get my progs to run on WIN95
| Hi David,
| thanks for keeping this can of worms propped open 
I agreee that this
is
| a real issue that must be dealt with, even if it is hard.
|
| >I understand the difficulty of supporting multiple versions of
| >Windows, but
| >how much of the library are people locked out of if they don't
| >have the most
| >current release of Windows?
|
| I assume you don't want this answered in percentage terms And I guess
| that what you're really saying is that people should not be locked out of
| parts of the library if they choose to run an old version of Windows.
|
| > For example, I still use Windows 95 at
| >home and
| >work, and won't beupgrading any time in the near future.
| >
|
| I don't run Win95 or Win98 any more. I can test on WinMe and Win2000. Are
we
| expected to test on all possible platforms before releases? What is an
| acceptable limit here? If anybody wants to be true alpha/beta testers, now
| is a good time to speak up.
|
| >Even more importantly, will people *know* that they are locking
| >out users if
| >they make certain calls?
|
| Are we talking Win32Lib routines or API routines? I believe that for
| Win32lib routines, we should provide that information. And for API
routines,
| they should consult the appropriate external sources such as Microsoft or
| the many 3rd party books on the subject.
|
| All the API calls are documented in the Microsoft website
| (http://msdn.microsoft.com) and so are "freely" available, in theory. But
is
| it the win32lib custodians' responsibility to duplicate some of the
| Microsoft documentation, in the win32lib documentation, about which
platform
| the various API calls are supported on. I will accept that we should add
| this sort of information to the win32lib routines, but the API calls too?
| And I could add to the docs which API calls (if any) are being used in
each
| Win32Lib routine.
|
| > For example, I'm sure that Judith would
| >prefer that
| >the IDE run on as many versions as possible - not just the latest and
| >greatest version of Windows.
| >
|
| What about 16-bit Windows. Should we try to support these (v3.1, 3.11) as
| well? Again, what is the acceptable limit?
|
| >If something is supportable, it seems to me that some effort
| >should be made
| >to have a fallback routine available. For example, when I first started
| >coding the library, a number of bitmap related routines were not
available
| >under versions of NT. As a result, I made a couple fallback routines that
| >would automatically kick in if the native API calls were not available.
| >
|
| That's wonderful, and g'donya. I believe you are also coming from the
angle
| that Win32lib is meant to be a platform independent library, not one that
is
| wedded to Microsoft Windows. I didn't realise this when I started helping
| you out, David (the library's name threw me). The current library is
| definitely NOT platform independent and some significant rework would be
| need to make it so. I trying to formulate a plan on how to achieve this
with
| minimal impact to current applications. But in the mean time, if anyone
| wants to supply emulation of new Windows functionality for old Windows
| versions, please feel free. I just haven't got the time. Its hard enough
| dealing with the official, and current, Windows API.
|
| >I'm not saying that advanced features *shouldn't* be available, just that
| >people should know when they use them that their code won't run on
certain
| >platforms.
|
| The term "advanced" is overloaded with undue meanings. Be they advanced or
| not, if currently available API features are not available on older
| platforms, including ones that have been discontinued by Microsoft, how do
| the Win32lib library custodians make this known, or cater for these,
without
| excessive effort? I'm open to suggestions people.
|
| ---------
| cheers
| Derek Parnell
|
|
|
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
