Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Geoff Harland wrote:
> > While I don't know if Microsoft is totally blameless in this case, the
> > fact still remains that they do provide documentation (albeit sometimes
> > of a standard where there is "room for improvement") to application
> > developers which specify various details concerning how applications
> > should be written, and when those specifications are complied with,
> > there is a greater probability that such applications will continue to
> > function in (yet more) future versions of Windows.
>
> Oh yes... :) How many applications still write into their installation
> directory during normal operation (configuration settings etc.), having
> made it difficult for ages to run them as normal user?
Fair enough observation; maybe that one should be assessed as Microsoft
providing more employment opportunities/job-related tasks for system
administrators. :-)
There's no doubting that some of the things that MS have done are
"underwhelming" in nature, such as forcing people to use "goto" commands within
batch files, as just one example. And even when their documentation is fully up
to par, there can still be reasons for being ambivalent about some of the
things that they specify and do.
For all that, I still think that it is desirable for any developers to at least
be aware of any relevant specifications that MS provide (or at least to the
extent that MS actually does provide documentation of a satisfactory nature),
so that if they ever subsequently opt to not fully comply with any of those
specifications, then (hopefully) they at least still know what they are doing
at the time. That situation would generally still be preferable to one in which
a developer had provided some functionality without having a full awareness of
any relevant specifications which MS had provided.
> > In any event, I assess that the problem more likely than not to be
> > "unfixable", so if it's not out of the question, maybe you should look
> > at setting up a "dual boot" PC (Win XP and Vista), or otherwise keeping
> > a PC on which (just) Win XP is installed, so that you can continue using
> > Protel 99 SE.
>
> There's also Virtual PC or VMware (both free), where you can run your XP
> installation. You need enough memory for two OSes, though (that's the part
> that can't really be "virtualized" :).
> Gerhard
I haven't had any experience with either of those utilities myself, but if the
additional memory requirements can be tolerated, then using one of them could
well be preferable to having to reboot the PC (before and after using Protel 99
SE). But I have provided yet another possible workaround (in another recent
message) which might avoid the requirement of having to continue providing
Windows XP (in order to continue using Protel 99 SE).
Regards,
Geoff Harland.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
