PureBasic Forums - English

While browsing through the SDK help again and looking at the OS requirements of each command I was woundering if I actually still have to bother about my programm being compatible with Windows 95. I mean it's been 11 years now.

I'm interested if someones still "seriously" using this OS. Like you are using (I strongly assume) Windows XP for browsing this forum, graphic & audio processing or even gaming.

Some poeple do still have systems running 95. My general practice is to not worry about 95 or even 98, until someone requests that I get it to work with 95 or 98. At that point its usually not too tough to fix it.

The exception would be if someone was paying me to write software and that was a specific requirement.

I would rather try to fully support Vista and future versions of Windows, than making it Windows 9x compatible applications.

Edit:
Fixed some misspellings.

It really doesnt take much to get an app to work in vista...

Everything that would have made it a pain for legacy apps on vista is gone really. (It just so happens that the 'everything' i speak of was all the stuff that was going to make vista a worthwhile OS)

What can be de reason for still using w95???? Crazy? Joke? Rebel?

This is harder for me to understand that the UFO stuff or some other strange things he he

dracflamloc wrote: The exception would be if someone was paying me to write software and that was a specific requirement.

Some extravagant rich???? I don't think anyone will ask to write software for w95!!

You'd be surprised....

Theres lots of companies especially in the manufacturing industry who are still running legacy OSes.

I've even written software for a company for OS/2 and that was only a little over 2 years ago.

I have '95 (original update version, no active desktop) running on one system, but I don't exactly "use it". I have two 486 systems with 4MB of RAM. One has DOS 6.22 & Windows 3.1 installed and the other has Windows 95 installed. I only use them for running my old games.

ricardo wrote:What can be de reason for still using w95???? Crazy? Joke? Rebel?

This is harder for me to understand that the UFO stuff or some other strange things he he

Install Windows 95 on a modern computer and see things FLY! It's fast!

> Install Windows 95 on a modern computer and see things FLY! It's fast!

So true! It shows how bloated Windows XP really is. Though, from a security
perspective, it'd be safer running Windows 98 SE because 95 wasn't really
very secure.

Sure it was... if you never enabled TCP/IP! (Which is how it was by default I'm pretty sure)

Windows 95 no, but Windows 98SE yes.

White Eagle wrote:I have '95 (original update version, no active desktop) running on one system, but I don't exactly "use it". I have two 486 systems with 4MB of RAM. One has DOS 6.22 & Windows 3.1 installed and the other has Windows 95 installed. I only use them for running my old games.

If I wanted to do something like that, I'd just use System Commander and install the old OS in a partition.

>It really doesnt take much to get an app to work in vista...

This remark can work out two ways.
Possibilities are:

1) You have tested your app on all kinds of features for Vista -beta or so?

2) You are, like MANY others, blind to the fact that an app should try to follow the new looks and not 'just able to run'?

I was also late myself for doing XP theming, i really hope Vista is compatible with that aspect otherwise i need to keep up again.

And... to put some more oil on the fire.
I really 'dislike' people who turn off the XP theming "classic suits me better"
How about when you sell applications?
To turn of theming at some point you'll even forget to to make test run at all.
A common mistake is that end-users do what you do.. turning off theming?
Don't forget.. each year you'll get NEW Windows users, they prob. never turn these settings off since they have nothing with classic looks.
How will the customer find your app with some dull 3d look?

Iow, there is more to an app nowadays.

Goodnight..

Edwin Knoppert wrote:I really 'dislike' people who turn off the XP theming "classic suits me better"

Then you'd really hate me, the first thing I do to a new XP install is set it to the classic look, then disable the Themes service.

To me all the "eye candy" just consumes resources I'd rather have available to run my programs.

I do however leave themes fully functional in the XP install I have in Virtual PC for testing.