On 23/09/2012 23:51, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 09/16/2012 09:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:38 PM, "Keith N. McKenna" >> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Rob Weir wrote: >>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna >>>> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> Greetings All; >>>>> >>>>> I was going through FAQ's and other pages on the AOO (incubating) >>>>> site and >>>>> noticed that many still are showing that we support Windows 2000 as a >>>>> baseline operating system. I though I remembered some discussions a >>>>> while >>>>> back on this list around that subject and thought we had decided >>>>> that we >>>>> would no longer do that due to lack of testing resources. >>>>> >>>> >>>> IMHO, "support" is determined by what we do, not by what we say. If >>>> no one is testing with Windows 2000, then it is hard to say we support >>>> it. And if Microsoft does not make Windows 2000 CD's available to >>>> developers for testing, due to a lawsuit, then it is rather difficult >>>> for anyone who wants to test. Not impossible, but they would need to >>>> get access to CD's or ISO images through unofficial means. >>> >>> The major disagreement I have with this Rob is that we publish FAQ's >>> and installation documents on our official web site that lead people >>> to believe that Windows 2000 is supported. >> >> Actually I don't think we disagree on this. At one point in time >> (OpenOffice.org 3.3?) Windows 2000 was presumably tested and that is >> why it is on the supported list. The fact that it remains on that list >> is purely due to a kind of inertia: documentation in rest stays at >> rest unless acted on by an outside force. >> >> So I agree that the website is out of synch with reality here and that >> this is suboptimal. Two easy ways to fix: someone volunteers to do >> some minimal testing with Windows 2000 to confirm basic operations, or >> we remove it from the supported list. >> >> Of course even if removed it could come back once tested. >> >>> What does it say for us as a responsible project when we tell people >>> that despite what we clearly show as a minimum requirement to use our >>> software is really not what we meant. All that does is leave a bad >>> taste in the consumers mouth that they most likely will tell there >>> friends about. That to me is NOT the image we should project. >>> >> >> If you feel strongly about this then you could propose to change the >> website and if their are no objections after 72 hours assume lazy >> consensus and go ahead and make the changes. >> >>>> Of course, we could have a dozen people say we *should* support >>>> Windows 2000. But should does not mean anything. We really need to >>>> find even a single person who says they *will* test with Windows 2000 >>>> and fix any problems that arise. Until that happens we don't really >>>> support Windows 2000 in any meaningful way. >>> >>> That is all well and good Rob, but again that needs to be clear to >>> people and not come as a surprise. I personally do not care one way >>> or the other if 2000 is supported or not. My concern is with the >>> image that we project to our user base. I am not a software engineer >>> or coder so therefore not qualified to judge what is or is not >>> supportable withing the code. That is why I brought this to the >>> attention of the people that are qualified to get better information >>> to present to our users. >>> >>>> I went back through the archives and did find a number of threads >>>> but they >>>>> never seemed to reach a definite conclusion. I we are going to >>>>> continue to >>>>> support it all well and good, but if we cannot then all FAQ's and >>>>> other >>>>> documentation on the site should change to reflect that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Support is not determined by consensus wishes. It is determined by >>>> someone actually doing it. >>> >>> Again Rob that is all well and good, but why are we publishing to the >>> world that Windows 2000 is the minimum Windows OS environment that >>> our product can run in? >>> >>>> Do we have any evidence that users have successfully installed and >>>> used AOO 3.4.x on Windows 2000? If it works, we might just list it >>>> "not a tested configuration, but some users report success.". In >>>> other words, between "tested and supported" and "known to be broken" >>>> is a middle territory where it is "use at your own risk". >>> >>> I really do not know if we do our not Rob. What I do know is that we >>> are telling users on our official web site that Windows 2000 is the >>> minimum Revision of the OS that our product will run on. >>> >>> Regards >>> Keith >>> >>>> -Rob >>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > At least the following web pages need some attention: > > * http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs.html > (not sure of navigation to this one) > * http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo34.html > (linked from download) > * http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html > (linked from main download) > * http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_30.html > (legacy download has this and probably still accurate) > > Many installation docs on the wiki as well
Also, moving to Visual Studio 2010 will likely kill off running on Windows 2000 (and Windows XP prior to SP2). The Visual C++ run-time library now uses the EncodePointer function which was introduced in XP SP2. -- Stuart Swales
