PureBasic Forums - English

Are there so many differences to not make a dedicated XP-Version of PureBasic? I mean, only x86 should be relevant and the demand seems to be here.

I still compile with PB v6.03 for Windows XP and Windows 2000, and have no problem with it.
With PB v6.04 beta 1 I get the error message with Windows XP (Translated):

"The application failed to initialize properly (0xC0000034)"

Even removing the manifest does not work, the same error always appears.
The Windows 2000 version also works with PB v6.04b1 without any problems.

This is just for information, I can live with the changes.

Peter

Every time runs standalone debugger, when I work with project, doesn't matter what I choose, integrated or standalone.
If I run/debug only main file, without project - all runs right

jacdelad wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:48 am Are there so many differences to not make a dedicated XP-Version of PureBasic? I mean, only x86 should be relevant and the demand seems to be here.

There are lots of compatibility hacks specific to XP in our libraries that we wanted to get rid of. Also, we cannot use any newer APIs without having a compatibility option. It is kind of limiting if you cannot use any API that has been introduced in Windows in the past 20+ Years (Yes, that is how old XP is now). It also limits what runtime library and compiler we can use (see here https://www.purebasic.fr/blog/?p=538)

So yes, supporting XP is holding back progress and it has to go. We already went quite a lot beyond what even Microsoft was willing to support so I don't think anybody is in a position to complain here.

My personal opinion is that a programmer or consultant that actively want to support a Windows-version (XP) that is not officially supported by Microsoft anymore needs to start the discussion with his customer instead of the developer of his programming-environment, especially when the 'old' versions of the developmentsoftware are still available.

I think Fred is doing a great thing by actively maintaining the software, especially having security in mind.

Thanks freak, for the explanation.

@KosterNET: We sometimes don't have a choice. Especially industry machines often rely on a certain os version and cannot be exchanged, especially when the manufacturer is already gone. Also you don't swap the machines for newer ones every decade, some have to work for a long time. I agree that home users should update, but this also costs money...which some simply don't have.

@KosterNET: We sometimes don't have a choice. Especially industry machines often rely on a certain os version and cannot be exchanged, especially when the manufacturer is already gone. Also you don't swap the machines for newer ones every decade, some have to work for a long time. I agree that home users should update, but this also costs money...which some simply don't have.

I totally agree with 'jacdelac', in the industry there are still a lot of machines who are running on WIN XP 32 bits.
but not all time on PB programs, we still have the older PB compilers.
I personally, I use 5.73 32 and 64 bits for that reason...

marc

+1 to drop WinXP support

I can understand all other points also, but I see no problem to use one of the PB versions from the museum then.
If you create, or have to create apps for stone old windows versions, there shouldn't be a need to add brand new features.
So, what's wrong to stay with an older PB version for those hand-full of apps you have to compile?

HeX0R wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 11:17 pm +1 to drop WinXP support

I can understand all other points also, but I see no problem to use one of the PB versions from the museum then.
If you create, or have to create apps for stone old windows versions, there shouldn't be a need to add brand new features.
So, what's wrong to stay with an older PB version for those hand-full of apps you have to compile?

I agree, It's a done deal and it was clearly announced that XP support will end at 6.10 which is really the consequence of updating the crt to the UCRT, no more gnashing of teeth linking to static libs I hope.

The machines don't run on PureBasic, sure, but extending their lifetime by "upgrading" them with self support is really a thing.

Though, I totally understand that dropping XP support is a thing. I just thought it would be possible to keep it by using something like the CompilerIf's we have to add some older code which is used for creating the XP version. Or maybe release an XP release sporadically. But there's already a lot of work, so sticking with older compilers should be ok. And one day all these machines and old computers will die anyway; with or without PureBasic support.

beta 2 is out, with an optional switch to enable DLL preloading protection as it's not working on XP.

Fred wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 3:59 pm beta 2 is out, with an optional switch to enable DLL preloading protection as it's not working on XP.

Code: Select all

- Added /DLLPROTECTION flag in commandline and a switch in 'Compiler options' to enable DLL preloading protection

Many thanks Fred, for all the hard work, and for listening to user feedback!

Thank you very much!

Thanks Fred!

My compiled program and the IDE are working again with Windows XP.

Peter

Thanks for the quick addition of the /DLLPROTECTION flag and compiler option.
However, wouldn't it be better to use the API's recommended by Microsoft (SetDllDirectory, SetSearchPathMode) rather than the Undocumented "loadFrom" in Manifest ?
Secure loading of libraries to prevent DLL preloading attacks

HeX0R wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 11:17 pm +1 to drop WinXP support

I can understand all other points also, but I see no problem to use one of the PB versions from the museum then.
If you create, or have to create apps for stone old windows versions, there shouldn't be a need to add brand new features.
So, what's wrong to stay with an older PB version for those hand-full of apps you have to compile?

+1, it's coming anyway, I hope, with all the new features planned for version 6.10