"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 8/1/2013 10:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> Regardless, the biggest gain by far will be being able to ditch support >> for XP >> and require at least Vista. As bad as Vista was, it had some major >> improvements to the Win32 API (like adding a proper condition variable). > > As a practical matter, we do not test on XP, and so it is disingenuous to > claim official support for it. > > I suggest saying we "officially" support Win7 or later, and unofficially > support versions back to XP. Unofficially means there's code there to > support it, and we accept pull requests to fix bugs in it, we will try not > to break it, but we don't test or guarantee that it'll work. > > It's like how we "support" Solaris and a VC-built dmd.
It would be rather silly to stop officially supporting the second most popular desktop operating system.
