William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote > > .dsw+.dsp lets us provide everyone with a makefiles and Makefile.win that > works ***everywhere***. If you insist on a GUI, there is one extra step > for Visual Studio 2002 (.NET) - Visual Studio 2008 users. But would you > like that we provide you a Visual Studio 2008 project that VS 2005 users > can't even load - due to the fact that the MS VS team insists on breaking > the project description layout on every successive release? > > As I said before, it's a non-trivial problem, and if you want to vent > please be our guest, and vent at the source of the problem, not we. >
I think most of us already have an idea of the source of the problem, and so please don't treat it as just complaining. One of the good things of open source is that it gives people patience and an open mind. As someone pointed early, it's probably time to move forward. If we continue to seriously think Win32/64 as an important platform for Apache (which was part of the reasons that shaped httpd 2.0), the time to say goodbye to those old Microsoft C 1995/98 .dsp stuff seems to have come. Here we probably shouldn't say much on MS's self compatibility policies. The reality is not that ideal; Even VS 2008 project files need to co-exist with VS 2005 and prior (though upgrading is usually much better). So I wonder if there is a possibility to propose a vote (or any other method) in the near future to see how many people still intend to use VS 5/6 (or perhaps Win9x) to run their Apache servers, and whether most of us would like to get rid of those dinosaurs and move forward. (As made clear sometime earlier, Windows 2008 R2 will only have 64-bit versions. The clock is ticking;-) Bing
