Alexey Petrenko wrote: > 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 :)
Heh. I meant win2k. early. little coffee... But I'm still asking as I don't know the windows world that well and wanted to know what the guess of quantity of active win2k machines was. Actually, thinking about it, I simply agree, as where my wife works still maintain win2k as their laptop standard build, and see no reason to change it... geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
