On 03.08.2012 11:33, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken.
That is a very strange argument when asking for a NEW version of a development
toolchain :_)
Why must we always pay the Microsoft-tax simply because Microsoft thinks
there latest crapware is better that the previous one - and we all know
that isn't always true (Vista anyone?).
But that doesn't apply to the win9x set. IMHO the only good reason to run
win9x is having significantly less than 512MB memory.
win2000 could run decently with 192MB, but is already deprecated (and was
always expensive). XP could run with 256MB, but barely, and the
requirements due to updates have increased over time. 384MB might be
doable, but I haven't tried in ages.
If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even
if it would crash every now and then) before going near a 9x. :)
Regards,
Sven
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
