On 2013-03-20 Wednesday at 14:32 +1100 John Beckett wrote: > Roland Eggner wrote: > > Prior to dropping support for w2k please consider: > > > > (1) w2k is known to be the least faulty OS version released > > by its vendor so far, because the phrase "based on NT" was a > > lot more than just an advertising, the development history of > > this OS version differed significantly from all other OS > > versions of this vendor > > (2) when running as kvm or qemu guest, w2k yields best > > performance among all OS versions of this vendor > > > > For this two reasons IMHO support for w2k remains useful, > > even more than a decade after release of w2k. > > Bram (I assume) would prefer to support everything, and not drop > Windows 2000 or anything else. However, the proposal is to start > using certain features that are only available in Windows XP and > later. Supporting an older system would require complex compile > options and a bunch of testing. All that makes developing Vim > harder and more fragile.
Good arguments. I just want to mention, that in the huge vim community there is at least one user interested in w2k support. > Why would someone who does not want to upgrade their operating > system want to upgrade their editor? Because improvements of vim are useful for its users, whereas improvements of newer windows versions are useful for the marketing of its vendor (e.g. licence restrictions …). To improvements like IE8 and IE9 we have plenty of alternatives. > W2k is not safe to use on the Internet, unless in a very restricted mode, Yes. For this reason I cannot imagine any usage other than inside virtual machines without external NIC. > and the current Vim has few bugs that matter, and has plenty of features, so > upgrades should be strictly optional. Agreed. -- Roland Eggner
pgpX2bm9RyQPd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
