l was just supporting what others have already said.

xsi was "certified" for Windows Xp, but a few months later when vista came
up, you could not click buttons on the message boxes (ex: "would you like
to save the scene?"), rectangle select broke, several features failed to
work due to folder permissions, netview broke, help files in hlp format
were no longer supported, etc.  I should know, i had to fix some of that
stuff.  Later Microsoft made a security patch to a visual c++ that broke
plugin binary compatibility and later a change to how DLLs are found which
broke some add-ons.  Microsoft is always threatening to block active
scripting, the engine at the core of XSI.   Since windows 8 they have given
up on backwards compatibility at all cost, you need to preserve your old
runtime environment if you want to safely be able to run XSI in ten year
and not just an archive of the old installers.  It's common sense and the
subject of this thread.

On Dec 25, 2014 8:00 PM, "Jason S" <jasonsta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/23/14 12:15, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:
>> * Safe keeping the installers is no security,
>> they may not run at all in the future,
>> being tangled in microsoft "MSI" installer tech and other things...
>>
>> * Older 32-bit Softmage installers already don't run because
>> they have a 16-bit component which won't run on 64-bit Windows...
>
>
> Whew!  By the sound of that, Softimage won't be running next year!
>
> And why does Soft so often needs to be  picked-up and dusted-off from the
floor (?) ;-]
>
>
> But sure "at some point in the future", Soft would inevitably start
having issues on newer setups,
> when Virtual Machines would come into play.
>
> *Yet*.. when do you think would that be?
> Soft was certified compatibility on win8 at a very early stage of the os
release,
> and would surely still run fine on the next OS  which is itself for some
time down the line.
>
> if not also the OS after that.
> (os ver. coming out every couple of years, quite consitantly with 3
versions back compatibility modes)
>
> So we're looking at at least 8, if not 12+ years.
>

Reply via email to