PureBasic Forums - English

Not that I want to persuade others to do so, but if it was up to me, I'd drop support
for everything before Windows 2000 or even XP. Just my two cents...

I have lots of customers using pre 2k machines - some still on 98, etc - I don't know how many there are on 95 though.

98 is still in widespread use, even though M$ doesn't like that

Many industrial machines still use 98, although majority seems to be moving over to Linux, away from Windows.

depends what your market is

I volunteer and do tech support for the local Cystic Fibrosis Foundation office. All of their systems are Windows 95 or DOS 6.22.

Most non-profit organizations do not have the money to run current systems. Most money they get, they "put it to work".

Digital Wargames wrote:

depends what your market is

Most non-profit organizations do not have the money to run current systems. Most money they get, they "put it to work".

It all right what I can read...but:
1) If a user have no money to use a newer OS...why should he pay for a new program?
2) People using an outdated OS they have also a running system (thats the reason why it is the same system for such a long time) and they will never change this.
Thats is what I belive.

I was forced to use Multiboot system (DOS 6.22, Win 95, Win XP, Linux) because some software does not even work in compatibility mode of XP and XP has a some bugs like forgotten option to format DD discs.
I think, it is great that Win95 is still supported.

LCD wrote:I think, it is great that Win95 is still supported.

Yes. Multiboot? Ok Nice...but why need you the same prog on XP AND Win95?

Well, at least that's a question I can answer: I run Vista as well as XP, and on Vista as well as XP I use Windows Commander. So there!

Frankly, I don't think I would support Win95 anymore, but that's the PBdev team's call. As for Win98, there are some users still using it, but I would not go to extremes supporting it... again the PBdev's call... a good thing they don't care much about WinME though

Keep in mind that in the business world (as Microsoft found out the hard way with Vista) most do not buy into the belief that you need a gaming rig with a SM3 capable card just to run the latest OS and your business apps.

With a Dell marketing executive on record saying:

"If there's one thing that may influence adoption, make things slower or cause customers to pause, it's that generally the ASPs (average selling price) of the operating systems are higher than they were for Vista and XP"

I do not imagine the adoption of Windows 7 will be as good as Microsoft is hoping.

Older operating systems have their place in the business world, especially for small businesses and charities.

1) If a user have no money to use a newer OS...why should he pay for a new program?

It is not just a matter of buying a new OS is it? You also need to buy new systems capable of running that new OS along with updating your infrastructure so it will be compatible with that OS. It is much cheaper to pay somebody to make a new program that does what you need, than to upgrade everything just so you can buy a program off of the shelf.

There's a big misconception that one needs the latest OS to be secure and
safe. It's false and basically a lie. If an app was written for Win 98, then a
business can use Win 98 with a firewall and antivirus app and be 100% as
safe and secure as Windows 7, but with much less bloat and hardware
requirements. If said PC is NOT connected to the internet at all, then one
could even argue it's SAFER than Windows 7 too, as the environment will
never be subjected to outside attacks at all. My 2 cents.

I don't develop for anything older than Windows v5.0
That way I can always compile with unicode (Win98 support unicode but with an extra M$ dll that PureBasic do not use).

Also unicode programs are slightly faster as there is no need to convert from Ansi to Widechars. (The Windows API's do this automatically on 5.0+ so you don't notice it)

And for those that do not still know. Windows v5.0 is Windows 2000 (XP is v5.1)
The difference between 5.0 and 5.1 are minimal.
Windows API functions listed by Windows release http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 85%29.aspx

Most stuff that runs on XP also runs on Win2000, just keep an eye for minimum OS notes on various API's in the function listings at MSDN.

Win 2000 is like, what... 10 years now? And XP is closing in on 10 years.
How many Linux and Mac users are there out there that still use a 10 year old Linux variant or MacOS ?

Taking a look at the SteamSurvey stats from Valve and various OS info at webstats sites you'll see that anything older than 2000 is barely in use any more. (in fact Win2000 is dying off as well it looks)

Thanks for "A Bug’s Life" ...good to know for everyone.
http://www.purebasic.fr/blog/

IceSoft wrote:

LCD wrote:I think, it is great that Win95 is still supported.

Yes. Multiboot? Ok Nice...but why need you the same prog on XP AND Win95?

Because my customers ask for a version that is working with Win95... Win95 is not very ressource hungry, so it works on low end PCs.

Digital Wargames wrote:I do not imagine the adoption of Windows 7 will be as good as Microsoft is hoping.

I saw this post from last year and it gave me a pretty good chuckle. Windows 7 is the fastest selling operating system in the history of personal computing. Over 150 million copies of Windows 7 have been sold since its release last October, and its growth is actually accelerating as more businesses are starting to upgrade hardware and migrate off of Windows XP.

In most cases you don't even need to update the hardware. I have it running on a 10 year old 1Ghz laptop with 384MB RAM - Runs miles better than XP sp3 on the same machine!