On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 06:18:24PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote:
The main difference though is that they concern different targets, and do
not share a Tier 1 target like win9x
Nevertheless we have (official) testers for those two targets. They take
care for them and even add new features
Am 04.08.2012 14:35, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
Though again, IMHO we should simply stop support win9x in main builds.
Interested people can maintain 3rd party builds for a while for the unhappy
few. Technical possibilities (slapping external unicode libraries under it
etc etc) enough, but
On 8/2/12, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
2.4.2 didn't work on win9x afaik. Only a handful noticed, afaik all of
You mean Win9x I guess.
All fpc's up and til 2.6.0 still run fine on at least WinMe (don't
know about Win98, can't test that).
Bart
--
On 8/3/12, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara luiz...@oi.com.br wrote:
Removing support for win9x would help cleanup the win32 widgetset
I totally agree.
Someday a decision should be made to cut the dead wood.
Bart
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Bart wrote:
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun
requirements for Windows?
I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used
Lazarus on Win98 (see
Hi,
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on
older Windows versions, but the INSTALLER is the limiting factor and
has different requirements / LIMITATION to the application it is
installing. Talk about f**ken
HI,
On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com 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. Why
must we always pay the Microsoft-tax simply
On 03/08/12 09:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
HI,
On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com
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.
On 3-8-2012 10:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com
wrote:
Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be
told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my
patch to incorporate
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 03/08/12 09:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
HI,
On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
Because not everybody
On 3-8-2012 10:34, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on
older Windows versions, but the INSTALLER is the limiting factor and
has different requirements / LIMITATION to
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:28:41AM +0200, Bart wrote:
2.4.2 didn't work on win9x afaik. Only a handful noticed, afaik all of
You mean Win9x I guess.
All fpc's up and til 2.6.0 still run fine on at least WinMe (don't
know about Win98, can't test that).
Ah ok. So I could have taken win95 as
Hi,
On 2 August 2012 19:49, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported
for ages?
So with that I would guess you consider Win 3.1 unsupported for ages
too. Yet Microsoft only announced that back in 2008. Now
On 2 August 2012 19:35, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
felipemonteiro.carva...@gmail.com wrote:
In my newer code I am no longer supporting it. For example
LCL-CustomDrawn-Win32 does not support win 9x.
Why? What do you have in a custom drawn library (which is even easier
to support more systems)
On 3-8-2012 11:18, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 03/08/12 09:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Because not everybody feels the need to fix what isn't broken. Why
Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no
journalling
Hi Bart,
On 2 August 2012 20:44, Bart bartjun...@gmail.com wrote:
It won't stop me from trying to contribute
Good for you - I commend you for doing so.
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
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
Hi,
On 2 August 2012 21:55, Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms supported by Lazarus, in
1.0, including Win9x?
Still having Win9x support in v1.0 will definitely be a plus point.
Not to mention Lazarus will be one up to Delphi,
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:08, Henry Vermaak henry.verm...@gmail.com wrote:
Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no
journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside.
And how often did updates break an existing system. I have
experienced this
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:26:13AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
So with that I would guess you consider Win 3.1 unsupported for ages
too. Yet Microsoft only announced that back in 2008. Now consider when
Win 3.1 came out!
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:16, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the next questions would be something like:
1. do these clients then use Lazarus applications or others like fpGUI
Both. We have applications created with LCL which pre-dates fpGUI.
2.2 a separate
On 8/3/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version -
i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible but would
still involve retraining costs/effort.
But old machines probably only can run old
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:18, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
The problem is very practical: Graeme comes from South Africa. His clients
are schools, distributed over South Africa and probably the rest of Africa
as well.
Sad but true. :-)
An additional problem is probably that their
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it
I actually like Marco van de Voort's idea of creating two target
platforms for Windows. That is the most sane comment on this subject
so far. It will be
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:54:21AM +0200, Bart wrote:
I sympathize with Graeme and his users.
OTOH maintaining Win9x/WinMe support is gonna be a huge task, and
who's gonna volunteer for that?
The fact that we have this discussion during release time says enough.
Breakage only noticed during
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:29, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version -
i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible
This is exactly what we are trying at the moment. Thus this means they
only need
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:33, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
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 :_)
I said what isn't broken. The development toolchain has lots of
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:49, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-)
But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must
clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I
know. :-)
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:54, Bart bartjun...@gmail.com wrote:
But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's.
Not really. You just swap out the standard (normally KDE or Gnome2)
desktop with something that is still very functional, and requires a
fraction of the processing power and
On 03/08/12 10:46, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:08, Henry Vermaak henry.verm...@gmail.com wrote:
Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no
journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside.
And how often did updates break
On 3-8-2012 11:56, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it
I actually like Marco van de Voort's idea of creating two target
platforms for Windows. That is the most sane
Bart wrote:
On 8/3/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version -
i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible but would
still involve retraining costs/effort.
But old machines probably only can
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
(win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode
centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are
glacial at the moment)
That does sound like a good plan for FPC trunk.
On 3 August 2012 12:04, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
What do we do with Lazarus though?
Why not split the LCL-Win32/Win64 widgetset into two... LCL-Win9x
LCL-WinWhatever
A very similar thing was done to the LCL-GTK1 LCL-GTK2 widgetsets,
so why wouldn't that work for
On 8/3/12, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
On the other hand, the current situation with nobody doing anything with
win9x except whining when the release doesn't work (afterwards) is not
going
I wasn't whining. Imerely tested and noticed.
Bart
--
On 8/3/12, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Breakage only noticed during release time means nobody has been testing
with trunk in a long, long time. Signs of a dead platform.
Lazarus (trunk) itself still runs fine on WinMe (and presuambly
Win98), it's only the installer that doesn't.
On 3-8-2012 13:40, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 3 August 2012 12:04, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com
wrote:
What do we do with Lazarus though?
Why not split the LCL-Win32/Win64 widgetset into two... LCL-Win9x
LCL-WinWhatever
A very similar thing was done to the LCL-GTK1
On 03.08.2012 12:17, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 10:49, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-)
But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must
clearly be some obscure need for
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-)
But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must
clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I
know. :-)
I happen to know that.
On 03.08.2012 11:08, Henry Vermaak wrote:
I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems.
People should be forced away from them for their own good (security
wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you
just drag out the process.
You must see it that
On 03.08.2012 13:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
(win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode
centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are
glacial at the moment)
That
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
On 8/3/2012 04:34, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on
older Windows versions, but the INSTALLER is the limiting factor and
this is the same thing with the adobe flash
On 3 August 2012 15:26, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
You must see it that way: Win9x systems are so old that nobody even wants to
write malicious software for them anymore :P (yes, this is ment with a bit
of irony/sarcasm)
So now Win3.11 might just be the safest OS around.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:35:46PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote:
I'm not waiting or repacking on win9x issues popping up during release
process anymore. If it is going to be a viable target, people must work and
test with it also between releases and with trunk.
Same goes for Dos and OS/2
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:23:30PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote:
But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must
clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I
know. :-)
In my university's system for Microsoft software I can still download
DOS 6.22 and
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 15:38, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
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. :)
We actually had a look at ReactOS too (about 2 years ago) - but then
it was just
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote:
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
On 03/08/12 15:26, Sven Barth wrote:
On 03.08.2012 11:08, Henry Vermaak wrote:
I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems.
People should be forced away from them for their own good (security
wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you
just drag
Em 3/8/2012 03:30, Bart escreveu:
On 8/3/12, Luiz Americo Pereira Camaraluiz...@oi.com.br wrote:
Removing support for win9x would help cleanup the win32 widgetset
I totally agree.
Someday a decision should be made to cut the dead wood.
IMO the best time is now (after 1.0).
The same for
On 03.08.2012 16:57, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:35:46PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote:
I'm not waiting or repacking on win9x issues popping up during release
process anymore. If it is going to be a viable target, people must work and
test with it also between releases and
On 03.08.2012 16:58, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 15:38, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
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. :)
We actually had a look at ReactOS
On 03.08.2012 17:00, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote:
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
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 17:23, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Also it's magnificient to see a NT based OS booting so lighting fast even on
a VM :D (I myself have not yet tried it on hardware, but others have and
it's getting more stable by the week)
I love that too. Does it beat
On 03.08.2012 18:49, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
On 3 August 2012 17:23, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Also it's magnificient to see a NT based OS booting so lighting fast even on
a VM :D (I myself have not yet tried it on hardware, but others have and
it's getting more
2012/8/3 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara luiz...@oi.com.br
Em 3/8/2012 03:30, Bart escreveu:
On 8/3/12, Luiz Americo Pereira Camaraluiz...@oi.com.br wrote:
Removing support for win9x would help cleanup the win32 widgetset
I totally agree.
Someday a decision should be made to cut the dead
FYI, I found this:
http://www.jrsoftware.org/files/is5-whatsnew.htm
5.5.0 (2012-05-29)
Non-Unicode Inno Setup OS requirements change: Windows 95, 98, Me, and NT 4.0
are no longer supported. Like the Unicode version, Windows 2000 is now the
minimum supported operating system.
So current Ansi
On 02/08/2012 10:03, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
FYI, I found this:
http://www.jrsoftware.org/files/is5-whatsnew.htm
5.5.0 (2012-05-29)
Non-Unicode Inno Setup OS requirements change: Windows 95, 98, Me, and NT 4.0
are no longer supported. Like the Unicode version, Windows 2000 is now the
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
polite hintIf not alrady planned, perhaps it's time to finally stop
officially supporting the Win9x series starting with the post 1.0 stable
release of Lazarus?/polite hint
I think we should do so if (or rather when) stable fpc
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun
requirements for Windows?
I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used
Lazarus on Win98 (see
[url]http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15352[/url])
On 2-8-2012 19:21, Bart wrote:
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun
requirements for Windows?
I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used
Lazarus on Win98 (see
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:38:47 +0200
Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2-8-2012 19:21, Bart wrote:
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun
requirements for Windows?
I know
On 02/08/2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
Not even having a working installer does give the term supported an
unexpected twist.
The installer was an oversight.
I already tested, it is no problem to build with inno 5.4 and have
support for the older win
--
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:13:50 +0100
Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
On 02/08/2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
Not even having a working installer does give the term supported an
unexpected twist.
The installer was an oversight.
I already tested, it is no problem to build with inno
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
...
Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be
told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that
On 02/08/2012 19:17, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Do you want to upload a Win98/ME installer?
I would simply have RC2 and release being win-me able. (it will be one
installer for all)
I don't mind building it, but uploading means going to test it again...
In fact I did just build it, to
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reinier Olislagers
reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
I think it is probably supported because the work to support it is
very small at the current point. It's really
On 2-8-2012 20:23, Bart wrote:
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be
told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my
patch to incorporate support.
As long as you do
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported
for ages?
No, it is not.
But we should formally announce that we are going to do so.
Just a matter of being polite.
I have the feeling this platform is
On 2-8-2012 21:44, Bart wrote:
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported
for ages?
No, it is not.
But we should formally announce that we are going to do so.
Just a matter of being polite.
Reinier Olislagers schrieb:
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported
for ages?
Just a thought (or some more):
Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms supported by Lazarus,
in 1.0, including Win9x?
How does it look when (at the same time) support
On 2-8-2012 22:55, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Reinier Olislagers schrieb:
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported
for ages?
Just a thought (or some more):
Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms supported by Lazarus,
in 1.0, including Win9x?
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 08:23:34PM +0200, Bart wrote:
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.
Well, maybe I should have written: I tested the installer for 1.0RC1
on WinMe and it does not run on WinMe.
As far as win9x, I've already decided that any win9x problems are no
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:31:47PM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
response/aside
It would look like:
a. an idiotic decision if there is a large number of Win9x users
2.4.2 didn't work on win9x afaik. Only a handful noticed, afaik all of which
were SVN users that could patch/compile their
Em 2/8/2012 15:23, Bart escreveu:
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagersreinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
...
Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be
told that
75 matches
Mail list logo
