Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > Alexey Petrenko wrote: >> 2006/8/8, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> hmm...of course we can get a workaround for now by providing separate >>> build for win2k. But I think it would be nice if we can have a common >>> win32 release(at least because RI has), it's just a little weird if we >>> don't... >> Anyway we should limit number of supported old Windows versions. >> Because Win9x for example does not have a huge number API functions. >> And if we will try to be compatible with them it will make life for us >> much harder. >> And what benefits will we get from this? What is the percentage of Win9x >> users? > > I don't think anyone would suggest supporting Win9x :)
Could be time to upgrade my Win 3.1 box then ;-( Seriously, I think it is fair to start at Win2k SP3. Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
