DonationCoder.com Software > Post New Requests Here

DONE: Barnacle - Add toolbars to your favorite programs

<< < (15/16) > >>

Rekrul:
:) I need beta testers!-skrommel (January 05, 2007, 09:18 PM)
--- End quote ---

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that nothing you've written works properly under Windows 98SE, even though you didn't bother to list any specific system requirements for any of your programs. Like the rest, this one doesn't work at all for me. When run it complains that it can't find a long list of PNG files, selecting settings from the tray icon just opens an explorer window for the directory that it's in, selecting Show Info does nothing, etc.

mouser:
Rekrul, I know you've probably heard this a million times and probably have good reason to stick with windows 98 -- but as a coder i think trying to support win98 is becoming something that isn't worth the effort, it's just no longer in use for all but a handful of people.

Rekrul:
Rekrul, I know you've probably heard this a million times and probably have good reason to stick with windows 98 -- but as a coder i think trying to support win98 is becoming something that isn't worth the effort, it's just no longer in use for all but a handful of people.-mouser (November 20, 2009, 12:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

Fair enough, but is it too much to ask that software authors actually list the system requirements of their programs? At the very least, if it hasn't been tested on older versions, why not add a note saying "Written for Windows XP/Vista. Not tested or supported on older versions of Windows."? I thought it was pretty much universally understood that if a program didn't list any requirements for a particular version of Windows, it meant it was compatible with all versions.

It used to be that every program listed all the system requirements, now even some expensive commercial programs don't bother to tell you what versions of Windows they work under. Some commercial programs DO still support it, so how are you supposed to tell which ones do and which ones don't if there are no system requirements listed?

To be perfectly honest, I downloaded a bunch of these little programs and after the second one failed to do anything, I realized that probably none of them were going to work. If the author had included a message such as the above, I would have just deleted them and moved on. However it "irked" me that authors no longer list the requirements as if it was just universally decided that people who have older systems don't deserve the courtesy of being told ahead of time that the programs might not work for them.

What if I'd installed a program that tried to change something harmless on XP, but which seriously affected the stability of 98? That HAS happened to me before. I may no longer be considered worthy of support, but don't I at least deserve to know that the software I'm considering installing wasn't intended for me?

I suppose you could argue that I should just assume that no new software is meant for 98, but quite a few programs do still support it.

awopbamboo:
Hi Rekrul,

You make a fairly valid point, but how far back are you expecting this software to work for?  You saiod it was 'universially understood' that if a program did not list it's requirements then it would work on 'all' versions... All versions??  What, way back to version 1? 
If you are going to try and run a peice of software that was written in the last year or so, it clearly was not written to run on a pc running an 11 year old OS.  One would assume it runs on the 'current' poppilus, with all the latest updates.  That to me would be the assuption (but not nessarily correct).  But to assume it will work on 'all versions of Windows' I think it wrong.

As a software developer it's neither cost effective or sometimes even technically possible to write software that works on XP, for example and also runs on 98.  They are simply too different.

Cheers.

awopbamboo:
Apologies for my spelling on the previous message!  I hadn't read thorough it.....  I'm not normally that bad!

Try this:

Hi Rekrul,

You make a fairly valid point, but how far back are you expecting this software to work for?  You said it was 'universally understood' that if a program did not list its requirements then it would work on 'all' versions... All versions??  What, way back to version 1? 
If you are going to try and run a piece of software that was written in the last year or so, it clearly was not written to run on a pc running an 11 year old OS.  One would assume it runs on the 'current' populous, with all the latest updates.  That to me would be the assumption (but not necessarily correct).  But to assume it will work on 'all versions of Windows' I think it wrong.

As a software developer it's neither cost effective nor sometimes even technically possible to write software that works on XP, for example and also runs on 98.  They are simply too different.

Cheers.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page