2006/8/8, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Alexey Petrenko wrote: > 2006/8/8, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >> 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 :) > But we should limit number of supported Windows version and post it on > Harmony site. > Because "win32" is too wide here. Right. We'd actually consider anything someone took the time to port to. (WinCE, or whatever it's called these days, anyone? :) So right now, it's winXP. What else makes sense? Does winXP really make sense? (Just asking...)
Seems we want to add W2K :) -- Alexey A. Petrenko Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
