Windows 95

This forum contains the news and their comments from the old, phpBB2+ based version of the website.
Locked
User avatar
TiKu
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 832
Joined: 28 Sep 2004, 21:10
Location: München
Contact:

Windows 95

Post by TiKu »

At the moment, I'm working on ExplorerTreeView 2.0 and am asking myself whether I should still support an OS that was released 10 years ago. It often complicates things, because some important methods of the Win32 API were introduced with Windows 98 or later and don't exist on Win95. In such cases I emulate the API method with my own code or place a note into the docs that the affected feature isn't available on Windows 95. Both options are unsatisfying. I tend to say good-bye to Windows 95 and use Win98/NT4 as the minimum system (sometimes I'd love to cancel support for Win98/ME/NT4, too - but I know I can't do that :oops:).

Let me know how important it is to you, that ExplorerTreeView supports Windows 95. Just post your opinion into this thread or send a mail to Timo@TimoSoft-Software.de.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Regarding use with older operating systems.

The project that I am working on is restricted to WIn 2000 and later. My web site stats tell me that about 88% of my visitors are already there and there would be too much confusion trying to NoOp features found only in Win2k or later on a win98 or earlier desktop.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Suggestion - Freeze development on Windows and create a NT specific version (with Win2000 as the base) so that you can add the new OS functionality.

When dealing with bug reports, you will have to support both bases but perhaps you can use a common base of code for both versions.
User avatar
TiKu
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 832
Joined: 28 Sep 2004, 21:10
Location: München
Contact:

Post by TiKu »

You mean make a fork and have two versions - one for Windows 9x and one for Windows NT?
At the moment I already have two versions: An ANSI-only and an Unicode-capable. The differences in code are about 3 lines and a pre-compiler constant. I could use the ANSI build as the base for Windows 9x (since 9x doesn't support Unicode anyway) and just remove (via pre-compiler constants) everything that's not supported by 9x. The version for Windows NT would be based on the Unicode build, which is fully supported by NT.
Sounds really good and I'll think about it.

However, you should know that there would still be features that run e. g. on Windows XP, but not on Windows 2000. At the moment this is the TreeViewItem.AccessibilityID property only. For the treeview this probably will stay the only affected feature, but the listview of XP has dozens of new features (groups, tiled view just to name two).
Crunching for Fab36_Folding-Division at Folding@Home. Join Fab36/Fab30! - Folding@Home and BOINC
Boycott DRM! Boycott HDCP!
Locked