Re: backward OS compatibility (was Re: commit: stylist dialog box localisation fixes)

Alan Horkan wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:45:53 +0000
>>From: Tomas Frydrych <tomasfrydrych@yahoo.co.uk>
>>To: abidevlist <abiword-dev@abisource.com>
>>Subject: backward OS compatibility (was Re: commit: stylist dialog box
>> localisation fixes)
>>
>>
>>Hi guys,
>>
>> > Mikey Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe this may be related to us trying to maintain backwards
>>>compatibility with vanilla Win95. TVS_SINGLEEXPAND is only defined in
>>>the MinGW headers (and presumably the MSVC headers as well) when
>>>targetting IE4.0 and greater. Still looking into it, but someone else
>>>may have more insight into this. It can be found in /mingw/commctrl.h.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I think we need to decide whether we want to continue supporting vanila
>>win95 or not.
>>
>>
>
>First off I'm inclined to agree that unless some users really speak up it
>is not worth doing. I guess I'd recommend asking the user mailing list,
>putting a poll on the webpage or try and get it posted with any upcoming
>articles or release notes about abiword.
>I was thinking other windows software included on theOpenCD has higher
>requirments than we currently do.
>
>
>http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
>The statistics on this page (worth noting because the target users are
>schools which tend to have crappy hardware and software) suggest that
>usage of Windows 95 has declined by a factor of four this year from (0.4
>to 0.1) and although we are getting into small enough numbers that we are
>probably talking within the margins of statistical error I really doubt
>anyone using Windows 95 upgrades very often.
>
>So long as we make it clear that Abiword 2.2 is the last stable version
>available for windows 95 (without upgrading Internet Explorer) and it can
>be easily found for rare cases where people might want it that should
>probably be enough.
>
>
I agree, however, I don't think it should be phrased that way. It is
the last stable version available for platforms that have not been
updated to IE 4.0 or above. I don't think I've seen a Windows 95 system
in production recently that didn't have IE 4, 3.0 and earlier were just
too crippled. Windows 95 (A with IE 5.5) still runs AbiWord great, and
I think it's a asset that we shouldn't hide. Try to get Word 2004 to do
that!

>
>
>>I personally would be in favour of not supporting it any
>>longer. I think it unlikely that there are any users who still run win95
>>and do not have IE >= 4 (and if there are and do not feel like it is
>>time to upgrade to something else, well, there is always AW 2.0).
>>
>>
>
>Did I miss a trick? I thought 2.2 was out already and would work on
>thseolder systems.
>
>

><snip>
>

>
>
>>I think we need some objective mechanism for deciding which platform can
>>be abandoned. I wonder if we could ask each person as they dowload AW to
>>put down what OS's they intend to use it on (the webstats are not
>>indicative in this regard, lot of folk download stuff at work, and use
>>different OS at home).
>>
>>
I think this is a great idea... I also think that we should provide a
link for Pre-IE4.0 files (if this change is made), in case someone (like
me) wants an old version to run on low-powered machines for an
embedded-type application. I know at least AOL's AIM has a link to an
old 4.2 (they're on 5.9) version for Windows 95, and it's good to know
that I could still theoretically use it, it would just be a bit older.

-- 
Ryan Pavlik
--
"He who teaches me for a day is my father for life."  --Chinese Proverb