DonationCoder.com Software > UrlSnooper
LATEST VERSION INFO THREAD - URL SNOOPER - v2.41.01 - Mar 24, 2017
Rekrul:
why are you still using 98 and expecting to use new software??? :huh: I don't suggest tormenting yourself with Vista, but XP or 2000 are still fantastically better choices.
-OverlySubtle (April 19, 2007, 04:28 AM)
--- End quote ---
Here's a question that I've asked many times, but which I have yet to recieve a real answer to;
What specific function of the 2K/NT/XP Windows line will new versions need to rely on that will cause them not to function uner 98?
Gotta agree here.
The time is coming very soon where people writing software will no longer care to be bothered with trying to support it.-Cpilot (April 19, 2007, 05:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
The same thing is probably going to happen to XP users in the very near future. MS has announced that DirectX 10 will be for Vista only. Of course, companies are free to continue supporting older versions, but typically, any new program that relies on DirectX, requires the absolute latest one. With a couple exceptions, every game released in the last 2-3 years has required DirectX 9c.
Cpilot:
For one thing the windows API changes, I know for a fact that there are API functions that will not work on anything less than Windows 2000.
Right off the top of my head SetLayeredWindowAttributes is one.
As far as the support for WinXP, when it's time to upgrade then that's what I'll do.
But if I were still using it a decade from now I'll hardly expect anyone to continue to support it.
Rekrul:
For one thing the windows API changes, I know for a fact that there are API functions that will not work on anything less than Windows 2000.
Right off the top of my head SetLayeredWindowAttributes is one.-Cpilot (April 19, 2007, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
And transparent windows are required for the proper functioning of a program how?
As far as the support for WinXP, when it's time to upgrade then that's what I'll do.
But if I were still using it a decade from now I'll hardly expect anyone to continue to support it.
-Cpilot (April 19, 2007, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
New versions of Windows are driven by;
5% Desire to make a better OS
95% Desire to get people to buy a new OS
It used to be that the OS existed to be able to run software. When did the OS itself become the star of the show with everything else taking a backseat?
Cpilot:
For one thing the windows API changes, I know for a fact that there are API functions that will not work on anything less than Windows 2000.
Right off the top of my head SetLayeredWindowAttributes is one.-Cpilot (April 19, 2007, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
And transparent windows are required for the proper functioning of a program how?
As far as the support for WinXP, when it's time to upgrade then that's what I'll do.
But if I were still using it a decade from now I'll hardly expect anyone to continue to support it.
-Cpilot (April 19, 2007, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
New versions of Windows are driven by;
5% Desire to make a better OS
95% Desire to get people to buy a new OS
It used to be that the OS existed to be able to run software. When did the OS itself become the star of the show with everything else taking a backseat?
-Rekrul (April 19, 2007, 11:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh good your taking one example and think it vindicates your point. ::)
If I want to create an app that uses transparency then it will function only on the OS's that support it.
It's that simple, no use in whining about it.
Personally I don't care one whit what OS you have, but I do know I won't bend over backwards to make anything I write compatable with Win98. It either works or it don't.
If someone feels they don't want to upgrade that's fine, but they shouldn't feel entitled to drag everyone else down with them.
Rekrul:
Oh good your taking one example and think it vindicates your point. ::)
If I want to create an app that uses transparency then it will function only on the OS's that support it.
It's that simple, no use in whining about it.-Cpilot (April 19, 2007, 11:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
So give me an example of some feature that Windows 2K/NT/XP has, but which Windows 98 doesn't, which is actually required for a program to function, and which isn't just some novelty piece of eye candy. And by "required" I mean something that is integral to the functionality of the program and which would be completely impractical to emulate on 98.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version