Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / lazarus / 2012-08

Inno Setup no longer supports Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me

80 messages · 17 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Reinier Olislagers

FYI, I found this:
http://www.jrsoftware.org/files/is5-whatsnew.htm

5.5.0 (2012-05-29)

Non-Unicode Inno Setup OS requirements change: Windows 95, 98, Me, and NT 4.0 are no longer supported. Like the Unicode version, Windows 2000 is now the minimum supported operating system.

So current Ansi Inno Setup no longer supports the DOS-based Windows versions.
The Unicode version never has, AFAIK.

<polite hint>If not alrady planned, perhaps it's time to finally stop officially supporting the Win9x series starting with the post 1.0 stable release of Lazarus?</polite hint>

Regards,
Reinier

Reply by email

Martin
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote 8 lines
FYI, I found this: http://www.jrsoftware.org/files/is5-whatsnew.htm 5.5.0 (2012-05-29) > Non-Unicode Inno Setup OS requirements change: Windows 95, 98, Me, and NT 4.0 are no longer supported. Like the Unicode version, Windows 2000 is now the minimum supported operating system. So current Ansi Inno Setup no longer supports the DOS-based Windows versions.

If needed, the installer can be build with inno 5.4 which still has support

Reply by email

Bart
to Reinier Olislagers: FYI, I found this: http://www.jrsoftware.org/files/is5-whatsnew.htm 5.5.0 (2012-05-29) So…
Reinier Olislagers wrote
<polite hint>If not alrady planned, perhaps it's time to finally stop officially supporting the Win9x series starting with the post 1.0 stable release of Lazarus?</polite hint>

I think we should do so if (or rather when) stable fpc has dropped support for win98 and winme (it already doesn't run out of the box on win95).

Bart
(Still using WinMe and Lazarus on it)

Reply by email

Bart
to Martin: If needed, the installer can be build with inno 5.4 which still has support

Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.

Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun requirements for Windows?

I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used Lazarus on Win98 (see
[url]http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15352[/url]) I run it on WinMe (but I don't need the installer, I use trunk via svn).

So it's probably not gonna be an issue.

Bart

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Bart
Bart wrote 8 lines
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun requirements for Windows? I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used Lazarus on Win98 (see [url]http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15352[/url])

Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME anymore?
Can't any people who use that just use the existing code forever and backport fixes themselves (e.g. into a separate Win9x branch)? Not even having a working installer does give the term "supported" an unexpected twist.

Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my patch to incorporate support.

I'm not against supporting old platforms, but having to support a version Windows with a very different architecture just doesn't sit well with me....

But perhaps that's just me.

I run it on WinMe (but I don't need the installer, I use trunk via svn). So it's probably not gonna be an issue.

So have you or anybody else on ME tried the installer? Otherwise WinME should be removed from the list as well...

Reinier

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Reinier Olislagers
Show quoted text 15 lines
On 2-8-2012 19:21, Bart wrote: > Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. > > Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun > requirements for Windows? > > I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used > Lazarus on Win98 (see > [url]http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15352[/url]) Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME anymore? Can't any people who use that just use the existing code forever and backport fixes themselves (e.g. into a separate Win9x branch)? Not even having a working installer does give the term "supported" an unexpected twist.

I removed the Win98 from the forum message.
There are more targets where Lazarus/LCL work, but there is is not installer/package. For example OS X PowerPC, Solaris or arm cpus.

Mattias

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Martin
Show quoted text 8 lines
On 02/08/2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Not even having a working installer does give the term "supported" an > unexpected twist. The installer was an oversight. I already tested, it is no problem to build with inno 5.4 and have support for the older win

Do you want to upload a Win98/ME installer?

Mattias

Reply by email

Bart
to Reinier Olislagers: Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME…
Reinier Olislagers wrote
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME anymore?

...

Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my patch to incorporate support.

As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable on 9x, it's hardly gonna be a problem.
Anyhow, this probably is more a fpc problem, since most of those are in windows unit etc.

On Linux we have the same problem with GTK2.

So have you or anybody else on ME tried the installer? Otherwise WinME should be removed from the list as well... > Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.

Well, maybe I should have written: I tested the installer for 1.0RC1 on WinMe and it does not run on WinMe.

Anyhow, as long as the fpc installer runs on win9x I'm happy. And when we drop the win9x platform, I have a valid excuse to update hardware (although it really is a sport maintaining it).

Bart

Reply by email

Martin
to Mattias Gaertner: On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:13:50 +0100 Do you want to upload a Win98/ME installer? Mattias
Mattias Gaertner wrote
Do you want to upload a Win98/ME installer?

I would simply have RC2 and release being win-me able. (it will be one installer for all)

I don't mind building it, but uploading means going to test it again...

In fact I did just build it, to include german translations http://www.martin-friebe.de/lazarus-1.0%20RC1-fpc-2.6.0-de-win32.exe

Reply by email

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
to Reinier Olislagers: Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME…
Reinier Olislagers wrote
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME anymore?

I think it is probably supported because the work to support it is very small at the current point. It's really up to the LCL-Win32/64 maintainers.

In my newer code I am no longer supporting it. For example LCL-CustomDrawn-Win32 does not support win 9x.

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Bart: ... As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable on 9x, it's…
Bart wrote 9 lines
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be > told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my > patch to incorporate support. As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable on 9x, it's hardly gonna be a problem. Anyhow, this probably is more a fpc problem, since most of those are in windows unit etc.

No it isn't. Look at the OpenURL patch that was declined by somebody else because of your remarks on failing Win9x behaviour. Nothing to do with linked libraries or FPC.

Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported for ages?
Amateurs like you (and I do appreciate the sport of keeping old hardware/software going - I have an OS/2 2.0 and Win98 VM image on standby and my wife is glad I finally dumped a ton of old PCs) can backport any fixes they want without bothering progress ;)

Also, is anybody maintaining GUI software that needs to run on the Win9x architecture? If so, it's either apparently so business critical that they can't upgrade/change, which means they can pay for custom Lazarus development or it's a hobby thing - see argument above.

I have the feeling this platform is kept alive and supported just because of 1 single person waging a succesful PR campaign and nobody dares to disagree.

Is there anybody else that needs current Lazarus support for the Win9x Windows architecture?

Of course, I'm just a (not so) humble contributor and can't shape policy, so I'm just waging a PR campaign of my own.

Thanks for listening - at least I got it off my chest,

Reinier

Reply by email

Bart
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported for ages?

No, it is not.
But we should formally announce that we are going to do so. Just a matter of being polite.

I have the feeling this platform is kept alive and supported just because of 1 single person waging a succesful PR campaign ...

[The following is not intended to hurt anyones feelings. Please note that I am not a native English speaking person and nuances tend to easily get lost in translation, especially when wriiten on fora or mailinglists]

I do not campaign.
If something breaks Win9x I try to fix.
If it cannot be done (fixing it for win9x), so be it.

... and nobody dares to disagree.

People (including in lazarus/fpc developers) tend to disagree with me many times, both in mailinglists, forum and bugtracker. Most of the times they have better arguments than I, or they are just plain right and I'm wrong.
This may be the case with current subject also.

As you have pointed out to all, I'm merely an amateur. I know many contributers to Lazarus/Fpc are not.
I don't mind that.
If my contributions are accepted that's OK, if not, then probably I'm out of my depth, and I can accept that.
It won't stop me from trying to contribute (just like you I suspect).

Is there anybody else that needs current Lazarus support for the Win9x Windows architecture?

I do not really think so.
As I have stated over and over again: maintaining Win9x compatibility is a hobby of mine.
No real development (of fpc/lazarus) should suffer from that. And I think it hasn't.

Of course, I'm just a (not so) humble contributor and can't shape policy, so I'm just waging a PR campaign of my own.

I'm just a humble contribitor too.
And I must admit, some vanity comes into play also... I enjoy it when code of me ends up in Fpc or Lazarus.

Thanks for listening - at least I got it off my chest,

And so did I.
Can I charge you for listening ;-) At least I can do that as a professional ;-))

To get back on topic: should we elevate this discussion (stop support for the win9x platform) to the devel mailinglist and see what comes from that?

Bart

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Bart
Bart wrote 8 lines
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported > for ages? No, it is not. But we should formally announce that we are going to do so. Just a matter of being polite.

Totally agreed.

Show quoted text 7 lines
> I have the feeling this platform is kept alive and supported just > because of 1 single person waging a succesful PR campaign ... [The following is not intended to hurt anyones feelings. Please note that I am not a native English speaking person and nuances tend to easily get lost in translation, especially when wriiten on fora or mailinglists]

Same here, no insults meant or implied.

I do not campaign. If something breaks Win9x I try to fix. If it cannot be done (fixing it for win9x), so be it.

Ok.

Show quoted text 5 lines
> ... and nobody > dares to disagree. People (including in lazarus/fpc developers) tend to disagree with me many times, both in mailinglists, forum and bugtracker.

Yep. I think it's one of the charms of the FPC/Lazarus list that a lot of the times we have violent or at least outpsoken disagreements yet still have a lot of cooperation afterwards.

Show quoted text 5 lines
Most of the times they have better arguments than I, or they are just plain right and I'm wrong. This may be the case with current subject also. As you have pointed out to all, I'm merely an amateur.

;) Heh. So am I ;)

Show quoted text 5 lines
I know many contributers to Lazarus/Fpc are not. I don't mind that. If my contributions are accepted that's OK, if not, then probably I'm out of my depth, and I can accept that. It won't stop me from trying to contribute (just like you I suspect).

Yep, same here.

Show quoted text 15 lines
> Is there anybody else that needs current Lazarus support for the Win9x > Windows architecture? I do not really think so. As I have stated over and over again: maintaining Win9x compatibility is a hobby of mine. No real development (of fpc/lazarus) should suffer from that. And I think it hasn't. > Of course, I'm just a (not so) humble contributor and can't shape > policy, so I'm just waging a PR campaign of my own. I'm just a humble contribitor too. And I must admit, some vanity comes into play also... I enjoy it when code of me ends up in Fpc or Lazarus.

Got you ;)

> Thanks for listening - at least I got it off my chest, And so did I. Can I charge you for listening ;-) At least I can do that as a professional ;-))

Just send me the bill... I'll see what I can do with it ;)

To get back on topic: should we elevate this discussion (stop support for the win9x platform) to the devel mailinglist and see what comes from that?

Fine by me!

Regards,
Reinier

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Hans-Peter Diettrich: Just a thought (or some more): Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms…
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote 12 lines
Reinier Olislagers schrieb: > Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported > for ages? Just a thought (or some more): Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms supported by Lazarus, in 1.0, including Win9x? How does it look when (at the same time) support for Win9x is announced to be dropped from future versions?

<aside>What about not announcing win98 at all and wait for the response</aside>
It would look like:
a. an idiotic decision if there is a large number of Win9x users b. a decision that is way overdue if there is a small number c. something that would go unnoticed if the number is even smaller

We could wait for user feedback on Win9x support, after 1.0 has been recognized and rated by the world outside this forum.

I'd think we'd have to weigh effort to support it against use. In my opinion, the problems with unicode, missing APIs are enough even though I had just one patch that was refused due to 9x compatibility problems

Yes, usage numbers would indeed help in making that decision... and there would be some broad consensus about the costs vs the benefits amongst the devs.

I'm using a Win98 VM for mail, because it is so damn small and easy to backup. Other people may continue to use such VMs, for the same reasons, and may be happy with a current Lazarus version supporting it.

Yes, or they may be perfectly happy with a certain fixed previous version to maintain their legacy software.

Except for the license issue such a small VM were nice for a live CD, with pre-installed Lazarus, for testing by everybody. Does somebody have a similar Linux VM, that would allow for such a live CD?

Are you seriously asking this question? Just start hacking on e.g. Knoppix, whatever and make it. There's already a VM out there with Lazarus on it and an Android cross compiler. See the forum.

Regards,
Reinier

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Bart: ... As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable on 9x, it's…
Bart wrote
>> Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. Well, maybe I should have written: I tested the installer for 1.0RC1 on WinMe and it does not run on WinMe.

As far as win9x, I've already decided that any win9x problems are no reason to halt for a repack or fix of a release anymore.

I'd rather drop it all together, but currently the real problem is always the retrospect

Anyhow, as long as the fpc installer runs on win9x I'm happy. And when we drop the win9x platform, I have a valid excuse to update hardware (although it really is a sport maintaining it).

IMHO, if win9x support should be continued, the win32 target should be splitted into a separate win9x and win32u target.

This has been said several times, but people keep fixing win9x. IMHO it should either fork to its own target or simply stop.

Reply by email

Hans-Peter Diettrich
to Reinier Olislagers: No it isn't. Look at the OpenURL patch that was declined by somebody else because of your…
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported for ages?

Just a thought (or some more):

Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms supported by Lazarus, in 1.0, including Win9x?

How does it look when (at the same time) support for Win9x is announced to be dropped from future versions?

We could wait for user feedback on Win9x support, after 1.0 has been recognized and rated by the world outside this forum.

I'm using a Win98 VM for mail, because it is so damn small and easy to backup. Other people may continue to use such VMs, for the same reasons, and may be happy with a current Lazarus version supporting it.

Except for the license issue such a small VM were nice for a live CD, with pre-installed Lazarus, for testing by everybody. Does somebody have a similar Linux VM, that would allow for such a live CD?

DoDi

Reply by email

Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
to Bart: ... As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable on 9x, it's…
Bart wrote 13 lines
On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even > support Win9x/ME anymore? ... > Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be > told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my > patch to incorporate support. As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable on 9x, it's hardly gonna be a problem. Anyhow, this probably is more a fpc problem, since most of those are in windows unit etc.

Removing support for win9x would help cleanup the win32 widgetset

Luiz

Reply by email

Bernd Mueller
to Bart: Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. Maybe the announcement (forum)…
Bart wrote 8 lines
Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. Maybe the announcement (forum) should remove win98 from the minimun requirements for Windows? I know only of one other person who (at least in 2009) uses/used Lazarus on Win98 (see [url]http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15352[/url])

this is me ;-) I am still using Lazarus on Win98. I don't need an installer.

Whoops, the bug tracker status is "feedback" I am going to check the RC version.

Regards, Bernd.

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Bart: Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. Maybe the announcement (forum)…

Hi,

Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe.

How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on older Windows versions, but the INSTALLER is the limiting factor and has different requirements / LIMITATION to the application it is installing. Talk about f**ken stupid. Solution: use a different installer that doesn't pose such FALSE requirements.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Reinier Olislagers: Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME…

HI,

Reinier Olislagers wrote
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even support Win9x/ME anymore?

Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. Why must we always pay the Microsoft-tax simply because Microsoft thinks there latest crapware is better that the previous one - and we all know that isn't always true (Vista anyone?).

Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my patch to incorporate support.

Welcome to the world of programmers. If my clients still run Windows 98, I can't force them to pay a fortune to Microsoft for a new OS, and force them to upgrade all there PC's because the latest OS doesn't run on a Win98 spec'ed PC.

And to answer your earlier question, our clients put together has over 2000+ PC's still running Win98. Would you like to tell them they must all instantly upgrade (and pay a fortune) when those systems still run perfectly for there purpose?

Asking Microsoft, they will obviously tell you NOBODY is still using Win95 or Win98 - but in reality it is quite different.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Henry Vermaak
to Graeme Geldenhuys
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 7 lines
HI, On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even > support Win9x/ME anymore? Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. Why

Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside.

I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. People should be forced away from them for their own good (security wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you just drag out the process.

Henry

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Graeme Geldenhuys: Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. Why must we always pay…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 14 lines
On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be > told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my > patch to incorporate support. Welcome to the world of programmers. If my clients still run Windows 98, I can't force them to pay a fortune to Microsoft for a new OS, and force them to upgrade all there PC's because the latest OS doesn't run on a Win98 spec'ed PC. And to answer your earlier question, our clients put together has over 2000+ PC's still running Win98. Would you like to tell them they must all instantly upgrade (and pay a fortune) when those systems still run perfectly for there purpose?

No, I won't.... but I think you're extrapolating about the need to "instantly upgrade" etc.

As I wrote earlier, I didn't have the impression there would be many users on Win98. Thanks for giving some real-life numbers.

I think the next questions would be something like:
1. do these clients then use Lazarus applications or others like fpGUI
2. can/should these applications be maintained by
2.1 Laz 1.0 (without new fixes)
2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it 2.3 trunk Lazarus with fixes as usual but without any testing/consideration for Win9x for any new code
2.4 the current way of doing things: patches that don't provide win9x support sometimes get blocked

Even though the difference between some of these options may be small, I think it merits a clear decision so everybody can plan and know the consequences.

I think Bart suggested this discussion be moved to some private lazarus developers list. No problems with that, I'm glad the topic is being discussed so informed, timely (not abrupt) well-considered decisions can be made.

Thanks,
Reinier

Reply by email

Unknown author
to Henry Vermaak: Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no journalling…
Henry Vermaak wrote 16 lines
On 03/08/12 09:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > HI, > > On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even >> support Win9x/ME anymore? > > Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. Why Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside. I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. People should be forced away from them for their own good (security wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you just drag out the process.

The problem is very practical: Graeme comes from South Africa. His clients are schools, distributed over South Africa and probably the rest of Africa as well.

Upgrading costs money. These people simply do not have the money to upgrade.

For westerners, upgrading is natural; we (mostly) do not think about the cost.

The clients of Graeme could of course obtain illegal copies of Windows and upgrade like that. Well, they want to play it fair, and that means: remain on an old version because they cannot afford the new one.

An additional problem is probably that their hardware is so old that the newer versions of Windows simply don't run on it.

Michael.

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Graeme Geldenhuys: How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on older Windows…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 9 lines
Hi, > Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on older Windows versions, but the INSTALLER is the limiting factor and has different requirements / LIMITATION to the application it is installing. Talk about f**ken stupid. Solution: use a different installer that doesn't pose such FALSE requirements.

The inno setup guys nicely described this in their changelog AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST. What else can they do when they want to support new OS features that aren't supported in this obsolete OS?

Solution: use an earlier (than 5.5.0) Inno setup. Hint: one could do the same with Lazarus: just use 1.0 forever to support your applications.

I'm sorry but starting a rant on an installer not supporting Win98 in a thread stating that installer's newest version does not support Win98 is... just weird.

Regards,
Reinier

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Reinier Olislagers: No it isn't. Look at the OpenURL patch that was declined by somebody else because of your…

Hi,

Reinier Olislagers wrote
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported for ages?

So with that I would guess you consider Win 3.1 "unsupported for ages" too. Yet Microsoft only announced that back in 2008. Now consider when Win 3.1 came out!

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jcoyne/archive/2008/07/09/it-s-the-end-for-3-11.aspx

Also, is anybody maintaining GUI software that needs to run on the Win9x architecture?

Yes our company is. And nobody is going to tell our clients to upgrade their systems - that's for them to decided. In the mean time, our software must keep running on those systems - that's what they are paying us for.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reinier Olislagers I think it is probably supported…
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote
In my newer code I am no longer supporting it. For example LCL-CustomDrawn-Win32 does not support win 9x.

Why? What do you have in a custom drawn library (which is even easier to support more systems) that can't run on Win9x? Just curious.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Unknown author: The problem is very practical: Graeme comes from South Africa. His clients are schools,…
Show quoted text 28 lines
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Henry Vermaak wrote: > On 03/08/12 09:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >> Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. Why > > Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no > journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside. > > I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. > People should be forced away from them for their own good (security > wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you > just drag out the process. The problem is very practical: Graeme comes from South Africa. His clients are schools, distributed over South Africa and probably the rest of Africa as well. Upgrading costs money. These people simply do not have the money to upgrade. For westerners, upgrading is natural; we (mostly) do not think about the cost. The clients of Graeme could of course obtain illegal copies of Windows and upgrade like that. Well, they want to play it fair, and that means: remain on an old version because they cannot afford the new one. An additional problem is probably that their hardware is so old that the newer versions of Windows simply don't run on it.

Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version - i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible but would still involve retraining costs/effort.

(Only slightly exaggerating: and if you're stuck with Telkom phone lines/ADSL or something even worse, I sympathise with people who want to download Linux CDs).

Regards,
Reinier

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Graeme Geldenhuys: Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. Why must we always pay…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote
> Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even > support Win9x/ME anymore? Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken.

That is a very strange argument when asking for a NEW version of a development toolchain :_)

Why must we always pay the Microsoft-tax simply because Microsoft thinks there latest crapware is better that the previous one - and we all know that isn't always true (Vista anyone?).

But that doesn't apply to the win9x set. IMHO the only good reason to run win9x is having significantly less than 512MB memory.

win2000 could run decently with 192MB, but is already deprecated (and was always expensive). XP could run with 256MB, but barely, and the requirements due to updates have increased over time. 384MB might be doable, but I haven't tried in ages.

And to answer your earlier question, our clients put together has over 2000+ PC's still running Win98. Would you like to tell them they must all instantly upgrade (and pay a fortune) when those systems still run perfectly for there purpose?

No. I would sell them an old version.

And ask them what their plans are before making assumption. For all that you know they plan to dump them in the bin next month. It has already been pointed out that we are already not exactly the last group or company that cut win9x support, so it can barely come as an surprise.

Asking Microsoft, they will obviously tell you NOBODY is still using Win95 or Win98 - but in reality it is quite different.

I haven't seen one in years that was not attached/embedded in machinery. (and even that is getting rare)

Hardware speced for/delivered with win9x is nineish years old.

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Hans-Peter Diettrich: Just a thought (or some more): Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms…

Hi,

Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote
Is it a plus to demonstrate all the many platforms supported by Lazarus, in 1.0, including Win9x?

Still having Win9x support in v1.0 will definitely be a plus point. Not to mention Lazarus will be one up to Delphi, because their IDE requires .NET to run, thus no Win9x. I have heard many complain about that in the Delphi forums.

I'm using a Win98 VM for mail, because it is so damn small and easy to backup. Other people may continue to use such VMs, for the same reasons, and may be happy with a current Lazarus version supporting it.

I still fire up my Win98 VM's on a regular basis - it definitely has its uses. Plus it's super light on resources compared to today's OS's.

pre-installed Lazarus, for testing by everybody. Does somebody have a similar Linux VM, that would allow for such a live CD?

I've often consider starting such a Linux live CD, just never got around to it, and didn't have the bandwidth to host such downloads.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Henry Vermaak: Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no journalling…

Hi,

Henry Vermaak wrote
Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside.

And how often did "updates" break an existing system. I have experienced this plenty of times! Hence, if my system works, I don't bother with updates any more. I'm behind a secure firewall, so no issues for me.

I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. People should be forced away from them for their own good (security

We have clients that run their Win98 systems in a class-room environment where they have NO internet access. So security is no issue to them either. And if the current system with the latest service packs runs there systems perfect, why must they be forced to upgrade. You clearly have NO CLUE has to how much time and effort and HUGE cost that would be to them. Typical response from a hobby programmer with no real clients. Please stop talking our of your backside thank you.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Graeme Geldenhuys: So with that I would guess you consider Win 3.1 "unsupported for ages" too. Yet Microsoft…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 6 lines
So with that I would guess you consider Win 3.1 "unsupported for ages" too. Yet Microsoft only announced that back in 2008. Now consider when Win 3.1 came out! http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jcoyne/archive/2008/07/09/it-s-the-end-for-3-11.aspx

That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-)

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Reinier Olislagers: No, I won't.... but I think you're extrapolating about the need to "instantly upgrade"…

Hi,

Reinier Olislagers wrote
I think the next questions would be something like: 1. do these clients then use Lazarus applications or others like fpGUI

Both. We have applications created with LCL which pre-dates fpGUI.

2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it

I actually like Marco van de Voort's idea of creating two target platforms for Windows. That is the most sane comment on this subject so far. It will be very similar to the LCL-GTK1 vs LCL-GTK2 implementation.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Bart
to Reinier Olislagers: Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version - i.e. older or…
Reinier Olislagers wrote
Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version - i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible but would still involve retraining costs/effort.

But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's. My 11 year old Celeron 700Mhz with 512MB RAM runs Suse 10.0, but I must admit that it is stretching the limit.
With old distro's come old widgetsets.
My GTK2 is 2.8, which already is driving Zeljan insane (many thanks to him for adjusting code for this version).
Inevitably we are also going to drop support for these old GTK's, and Graeme's users in the end are none the wiser...

I sympathize with Graeme and his users.
OTOH maintaining Win9x/WinMe support is gonna be a huge task, and who's gonna volunteer for that?

Bart

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Unknown author: The problem is very practical: Graeme comes from South Africa. His clients are schools,…

Hi,

The problem is very practical: Graeme comes from South Africa. His clients are schools, distributed over South Africa and probably the rest of Africa as well.

Sad but true. :-)

An additional problem is probably that their hardware is so old that the newer versions of Windows simply don't run on it.

Exactly!!! So suddenly the costs of upgrading sky rockets - and for very little real benefit.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Graeme Geldenhuys: Both. We have applications created with LCL which pre-dates fpGUI. I actually like Marco…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 6 lines
> 2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it I actually like Marco van de Voort's idea of creating two target platforms for Windows. That is the most sane comment on this subject so far. It will be very similar to the LCL-GTK1 vs LCL-GTK2 implementation.

It also forces the target to carry its own weight, and doesn't force people uninterested to pay attention. But that is something for trunk branch, not for fixes like 2.6

But that works to ways, IOW it also means you can build in a complete unicode emulation without the 99.9% NT majority suffering from it (read: getting endless binary size discussions)

(win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are glacial at the moment)

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Bart: But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's. My 11 year old Celeron 700Mhz…
Bart wrote
I sympathize with Graeme and his users. OTOH maintaining Win9x/WinMe support is gonna be a huge task, and who's gonna volunteer for that?

The fact that we have this discussion during release time says enough.

Breakage only noticed during release time means nobody has been testing with trunk in a long, long time. Signs of a dead platform.

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Reinier Olislagers: Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version - i.e. older or…

Hi,

Reinier Olislagers wrote
Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version - i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible

This is exactly what we are trying at the moment. Thus this means they only need to upgrade the OS, and not the hardware too. In the end saving on costs: Linux is free, more modern OS, and no hardware upgrades required. Hence the reason we started fpGUI - to give them exactly the same look & feel between Windows and Linux. Thus reducing some of the retraining costs.

Our clients think of it quit simply as... for every PC not running (eg: during an upgrade), they are loosing money. The the move to Linux is slow, so we still have a lot of Win98 PC's to support.

(Only slightly exaggerating: and if you're stuck with Telkom phone lines/ADSL or something even worse, I sympathise with people who want to download Linux CDs).

That's why Mac products are so not meant for Africa! Apple expects people to download 1Gig OS updates (all updates now only being digital). They should visit Africa to see what a stupid idea that is.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Marco van de Voort: That is a very strange argument when asking for a NEW version of a development toolchain…

Hi,

Marco van de Voort wrote 5 lines
> Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. That is a very strange argument when asking for a NEW version of a development toolchain :_)

I said "what isn't broken". The development toolchain has lots of broken bits. ;-)

But that doesn't apply to the win9x set. IMHO the only good reason to run win9x is having significantly less than 512MB memory.

They buy PC's from refurbished shops to save costs. So they are spec'ed like they were in the 90's - often with 64 or 128MB RAM. You will fall on your back if you see some of these PC's. I brings back fond memories from years back!!

And ask them what their plans are before making assumption.

We never make assumptions with our clients. We constantly ask them what they have, and try and nudge them to upgrading a few systems per year. We can't even assume they all have DVD drives, so we still need to ship application updates on CD's instead.

Like I said, they don't consider their systems out of date, because they still work fine for their needs.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Marco van de Voort: That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-)

Hi,

Marco van de Voort wrote
That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-)

But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I know. :-)

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Bart: But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's. My 11 year old Celeron 700Mhz…

Hi,

Bart wrote
But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's.

Not really. You just swap out the standard (normally KDE or Gnome2) desktop with something that is still very functional, and requires a fraction of the processing power and memory. eg: JWM (Joe's Window Manager). JWM looks like Win9x by default and runs super fast on a old system with the latest Ubuntu (base install + X11).

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Henry Vermaak
to Graeme Geldenhuys: And how often did "updates" break an existing system. I have experienced this plenty of…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 12 lines
Hi, On 3 August 2012 10:08, Henry Vermaak wrote: > > Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no > journalling filesystem (no ntfs). Stop talking out of your backside. And how often did "updates" break an existing system. I have experienced this plenty of times! Hence, if my system works, I don't bother with updates any more. I'm behind a secure firewall, so no issues for me.

A system doesn't "work" if it corrupts data if you get a power cut. Power cuts are quite common in South Africa now, I hear.

Show quoted text 8 lines
> I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. > People should be forced away from them for their own good (security We have clients that run their Win98 systems in a class-room environment where they have NO internet access. So security is no issue to them either. And if the current system with the latest service packs runs there systems perfect, why must they be forced to upgrade. You clearly have NO CLUE has to how much time and effort and

Fair enough, I see that cost is an issue for these people (I'm from Africa too, after all). This is something they can remedy by moving to a more open platform, as many organisations have, which will give the software (and hardware) a much more guaranteed future. This may also cost them, in the short term - but it will cost them more if they choose the easy way out.

Typical response from a hobby programmer with no real clients.

How childish, but I expect no less from you. This would be a compliment, actually, but it's not true. I wish I was a hobby programmer, then I won't have to make ridiculous concessions to ignorant customers. Then I won't have to rush software out the door before I'm happy with it. Then I won't get my arm twisted to support platforms that hurt my industry and profession.

Henry

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Marco van de Voort: It also forces the target to carry its own weight, and doesn't force people uninterested…
Marco van de Voort wrote 6 lines
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >> 2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it > > I actually like Marco van de Voort's idea of creating two target > platforms for Windows. That is the most sane comment on this subject > so far.

Well thanks Graeme, very nice reverse compliment - I'll take my pills now ;)

Show quoted text 13 lines
> It will be very similar to the LCL-GTK1 vs LCL-GTK2 > implementation. It also forces the target to carry its own weight, and doesn't force people uninterested to pay attention. But that is something for trunk branch, not for fixes like 2.6 But that works to ways, IOW it also means you can build in a complete unicode emulation without the 99.9% NT majority suffering from it (read: getting endless binary size discussions) (win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are glacial at the moment)

That does sound like a good plan for FPC trunk.

What do we do with Lazarus though?
At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support.

http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Development_Process#Lazarus_branches_.2F_version_numbers_around_1.0 AFAIU, current trunk is 1.1.
We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in time for 1.2?
Or is there a much smarter solution?

Regards,
Reinier

Reply by email

Ludo Brands
to Reinier Olislagers
Show quoted text 6 lines
What do we do with Lazarus though? At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support. We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in time for 1.2? Or is there a much smarter solution?

What about a "new" win9x LCL target. Just clone the win32 target and let it live its own life and stop dragging the win32 LCL down.

Ludo

Reply by email

Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Bart: But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's. My 11 year old Celeron 700Mhz…
Bart wrote 9 lines
On 8/3/12, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Yep. Presumably changing over to (some less resource intensive version - > i.e. older or non-mainstream - of) Linux would be possible but would > still involve retraining costs/effort. But old machines probably only can run old Linux distro's. My 11 year old Celeron 700Mhz with 512MB RAM runs Suse 10.0, but I must admit that it is stretching the limit.

Since I typically run older hardware, I crave indulgence to point out that that's not strictly correct. In general, I'd expect a machine of that vintage to run a recent distro, but /not/ necessarily to run a recent desktop (alias, these days, window manager). I'd expect something like Debian Squeeze plus xfce to be OK on anything half-decent, on the other hand I'd expect even recent hardware to render its default desktop badly if asked to do so over e.g. a remote X link (including ssh tunneling) or VNC.

By "half-decent" above, I specifically exclude:

* Anything with fewer than 256 colours, or with a screen smaller than 1024x768.

* On PCs, anything predating the PC-99 standard.

* On PCs, anything with MCA, even if nominally compliant with PC-99.

* On PCs, anything that claims to be a fully PCI system but is actually based on EISA (older Compaq servers fall into this category), even if nominally compliant with PC-99.

With old distro's come old widgetsets. My GTK2 is 2.8, which already is driving Zeljan insane (many thanks to him for adjusting code for this version).

If the decimal is an issue, would it be possible to get the Lazarus version splash to display it, or to have detected library versions accessible somewhere? If I were doing a support job I'd definitely want a caller to be able to get this info easily.

I sympathize with Graeme and his users. OTOH maintaining Win9x/WinMe support is gonna be a huge task, and who's gonna volunteer for that?

In the context of Lazarus, I have somewhat less sympathy for '9x (strictly: the Win-32 API implemented by OSes other than the NT family) than I do with older OSes such as W2K and NT. The reason for this is that Lazarus and the LCL are, to a very large extent, a development environment and class library paralleling Delphi; one of Delphi's major selling points has always been good support for threads and as such it would be unreasonable to expect it to be fully implemented on '9x, so why should Lazarus try to do better?

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Reinier Olislagers: Well thanks Graeme, very nice reverse compliment - I'll take my pills now ;) That does…
Reinier Olislagers wrote 7 lines
> (win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode > centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are > glacial at the moment) That does sound like a good plan for FPC trunk. What do we do with Lazarus though? At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support.

Note that I don't think it is a /good/ plan. It is IMHO simply the only sustainable compromise if win9x must be long term supported in all new releases. (and it is a different question alltogether if we should, IMHO not. If I had my way it would have ended with 2.6.0 already)

The only other (and IMHO better) solution is simply branch a FPC and Lazarus that still support it, and minimally maintain that ad infinitum. That means maintaining two installs for people that target win9x, but at least it puts the burden where the pain is. Not on unsuspected devels that haven't touched win9x in ten years or longer.

Show quoted text 5 lines
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Development_Process#Lazarus_branches_.2F_version_numbers_around_1.0 AFAIU, current trunk is 1.1. We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in time for 1.2?

I don't know the tradeoffs for Lazarus. Widgetset is another dimension to the target platform, so it is an independent choice from what FPC does.

Specially with crucial unicode decisions in limbo it is hard to predict a sane course.

That's one other reason I don't like committing to support it. The future of FPC/Lazarus must be defined by other things than win95 support considerations.

On the other hand, the current situation with nobody doing anything with win9x except whining when the release doesn't work (afterwards) is not going to continue. At least not with FPC.

I'm not waiting or repacking on win9x issues popping up during release process anymore. If it is going to be a viable target, people must work and test with it also between releases and with trunk.

Same goes for Dos and OS/2 btw.

Reply by email

Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Ludo Brands: What about a "new" win9x LCL target. Just clone the win32 target and let it live its own…
Ludo Brands wrote 9 lines
> What do we do with Lazarus though? > At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support. > > We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture > branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in > time for 1.2? Or is there a much smarter solution? What about a "new" win9x LCL target. Just clone the win32 target and let it live its own life and stop dragging the win32 LCL down.

In effect, what's been done with GTK (v1). With the proviso that in both cases there should be prominent warning of the preferred FPC version that goes with Lazarus+LCL for that target: I put something together a few months ago that I specifically wanted to work for as many widget sets as possible and had to do quite a lot of fiddling before I settled on 0.9.24.1+2.2.4.

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Reinier Olislagers: Well thanks Graeme, very nice reverse compliment - I'll take my pills now ;) That does…
Reinier Olislagers wrote
What do we do with Lazarus though?

Why not split the LCL-Win32/Win64 widgetset into two... LCL-Win9x & LCL-WinWhatever
A very similar thing was done to the LCL-GTK1 & LCL-GTK2 widgetsets, so why wouldn't that work for the Windows targets too.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Bart
to Marco van de Voort: The fact that we have this discussion during release time says enough. Breakage only…
Marco van de Voort wrote
Breakage only noticed during release time means nobody has been testing with trunk in a long, long time. Signs of a dead platform.

Lazarus (trunk) itself still runs fine on WinMe (and presuambly Win98), it's only the installer that doesn't.
If I understood corretly CustomDrawn WS doesn't work on Win9x, I never used it, so I didn't notice.

Nevertheless, the platform may be dead, that is, at least in western world.

Bart

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Graeme Geldenhuys: Why not split the LCL-Win32/Win64 widgetset into two... LCL-Win9x & LCL-WinWhatever A…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 7 lines
On 3 August 2012 12:04, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > What do we do with Lazarus though? Why not split the LCL-Win32/Win64 widgetset into two... LCL-Win9x & LCL-WinWhatever A very similar thing was done to the LCL-GTK1 & LCL-GTK2 widgetsets, so why wouldn't that work for the Windows targets too.

For current trunk? Sounds like a plan.

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Graeme Geldenhuys: But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must clearly be some obscure…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 10 lines
Hi, On 3 August 2012 10:49, Marco van de Voort wrote: > > That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-) But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I know. :-)

In my university's system for Microsoft software I can still download DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 ;)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Henry Vermaak: Lol, you owe me a new keyboard. No updates for 6 years from MS, no journalling…
Henry Vermaak wrote
I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. People should be forced away from them for their own good (security wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you just drag out the process.

You must see it that way: Win9x systems are so old that nobody even wants to write malicious software for them anymore :P (yes, this is ment with a bit of irony/sarcasm)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Graeme Geldenhuys: But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must clearly be some obscure…

In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:

Show quoted text 5 lines
> That is sale, not support. We are not removing old releases from FTP yet :-) But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I know. :-)

I happen to know that. Major OEMs _had_ to deliver machines with a windows version, per agreement with microsoft.

Major firms and higher(?) education however have site licenses, also per machine, with significant lower cost per machine then a normal OEM license.

So they did order machines from the major OEMs (Dell, HP) with the cheapest licensing option available (Win3.11, OEM price Eur 9 or so), and put their own Windows XP image on it.

In the basement of one of our uni buildings there were several containers, each about 1m^3 in size full of 3.1x and 9x licenses, CD without case +certificate shrinkwrapped together (I'm talking about the 2000-2005 timeframe here)

So there probably was no need for those versions. It was merely part of a licensing construct/loophole. I'm not working at a company with sitelicensing anymore so I don't know what the current ways are.

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Marco van de Voort: Note that I don't think it is a /good/ plan. It is IMHO simply the only sustainable…
Marco van de Voort wrote 46 lines
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> (win9x support might be something that will get harder when more unicode >> centric releases as fpc/trunk.7.1 come out, though the unicode changes are >> glacial at the moment) > That does sound like a good plan for FPC trunk. > > What do we do with Lazarus though? > At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support. Note that I don't think it is a /good/ plan. It is IMHO simply the only sustainable compromise if win9x must be long term supported in all new releases. (and it is a different question alltogether if we should, IMHO not. If I had my way it would have ended with 2.6.0 already) The only other (and IMHO better) solution is simply branch a FPC and Lazarus that still support it, and minimally maintain that ad infinitum. That means maintaining two installs for people that target win9x, but at least it puts the burden where the pain is. Not on unsuspected devels that haven't touched win9x in ten years or longer. > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Development_Process#Lazarus_branches_.2F_version_numbers_around_1.0 > AFAIU, current trunk is 1.1. > We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture > branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in time > for 1.2? I don't know the tradeoffs for Lazarus. Widgetset is another dimension to the target platform, so it is an independent choice from what FPC does. Specially with crucial unicode decisions in limbo it is hard to predict a sane course. That's one other reason I don't like committing to support it. The future of FPC/Lazarus must be defined by other things than win95 support considerations. On the other hand, the current situation with nobody doing anything with win9x except whining when the release doesn't work (afterwards) is not going to continue. At least not with FPC. I'm not waiting or repacking on win9x issues popping up during release process anymore. If it is going to be a viable target, people must work and test with it also between releases and with trunk. Same goes for Dos and OS/2 btw.

Somehow I have the feeling that we (FPC) have more testers for DOS and OS/2 than for 9x ;)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Marco van de Voort: That is a very strange argument when asking for a NEW version of a development toolchain…
Marco van de Voort wrote 20 lines
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >> Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even >> support Win9x/ME anymore? > > Because not everybody feels the need to "fix" what isn't broken. That is a very strange argument when asking for a NEW version of a development toolchain :_) > Why must we always pay the Microsoft-tax simply because Microsoft thinks > there latest crapware is better that the previous one - and we all know > that isn't always true (Vista anyone?). But that doesn't apply to the win9x set. IMHO the only good reason to run win9x is having significantly less than 512MB memory. win2000 could run decently with 192MB, but is already deprecated (and was always expensive). XP could run with 256MB, but barely, and the requirements due to updates have increased over time. 384MB might be doable, but I haven't tried in ages.

If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even if it would crash every now and then) before going near a 9x. :)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

waldo kitty
to Graeme Geldenhuys: How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on older Windows…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 6 lines
Hi, > Current installer for 1.0RC1 indeed does not run on WinMe. How ridiculous is it that the applications will probably run fine on older Windows versions, but the INSTALLER is the limiting factor and

this is the same thing with the adobe flash installer... flash runs just fine on w2k but the installer requires winXP... there's two methods to fix this problem, though... one is to use a shim kernel and install where the shim kernel is located... another is to hex edit the installer and find the one routine name and replace it with the older routine name... in the particular case with flash, it is the dll loading routine... the old name generally used fits exactly in the new name's place and works just fine... you just have to do this each time there's an update...

has different requirements / LIMITATION to the application it is installing. Talk about f**ken stupid. Solution: use a different installer that doesn't pose such FALSE requirements.

i might suggest to fix the installer so that it detects which OS it is on and then it will call the proper routine for that OS... but that's me... i don't know if the above described situation with adobe flash is the same problem we're seeing here but it is installer related... i don't know what installer adobe is using and don't know how to find out but the smell is similar ;)

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Sven Barth: You must see it that way: Win9x systems are so old that nobody even wants to write…
Sven Barth wrote
You must see it that way: Win9x systems are so old that nobody even wants to write malicious software for them anymore :P (yes, this is ment with a bit of irony/sarcasm)

So now Win3.11 might just be the "safest" OS around. :-)

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Sven Barth: Somehow I have the feeling that we (FPC) have more testers for DOS and OS/2 than for 9x ;)
Sven Barth wrote 8 lines
> I'm not waiting or repacking on win9x issues popping up during release > process anymore. If it is going to be a viable target, people must work and > test with it also between releases and with trunk. > > Same goes for Dos and OS/2 btw. Somehow I have the feeling that we (FPC) have more testers for DOS and OS/2 than for 9x ;)

They are mostly the same: Pierre and Tomas.

They all share the same trouble of very little activity between releases.

The main difference though is that they concern different targets, and do not share a Tier 1 target like win9x

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Sven Barth: In my university's system for Microsoft software I can still download DOS 6.22 and Win…
Sven Barth wrote 7 lines
> > But for someone to still want to buy Win3.1 in 2008, there must > clearly be some obscure need for it - in this day and age. Weird, I > know. :-) In my university's system for Microsoft software I can still download DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11 ;)

Maybe their licenses for those are perpetual. But that doesn't mean I want to support them forever :)

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Sven Barth: If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even if it would crash…

Hi,

Sven Barth wrote
If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even if it would crash every now and then) before going near a 9x. :)

We actually had a look at ReactOS too (about 2 years ago) - but then it was just too unstable. I guess it might be worth taking another look at it, as I remember reading recently that major improvements have been made in it.

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Sven Barth: If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even if it would crash…
Sven Barth wrote 8 lines
> > win2000 could run decently with 192MB, but is already deprecated (and was > always expensive). XP could run with 256MB, but barely, and the > requirements due to updates have increased over time. 384MB might be > doable, but I haven't tried in ages. If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even if it would crash every now and then) before going near a 9x. :)

Depends on if your source of machinery is homogenous (e.g. from some enterprise range), or mis match.

I don't know much _practical_ about reactos, but I can imagine driver issues on all sides.

Reply by email

Henry Vermaak
to Sven Barth: You must see it that way: Win9x systems are so old that nobody even wants to write…
Sven Barth wrote 9 lines
On 03.08.2012 11:08, Henry Vermaak wrote: > I personally think it's immoral to support these operating systems. > People should be forced away from them for their own good (security > wise), since they obviously know no better. By supporting them, you > just drag out the process. You must see it that way: Win9x systems are so old that nobody even wants to write malicious software for them anymore :P (yes, this is ment with a bit of irony/sarcasm)

Even malware rely on new Windows functionality :)

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Marco van de Voort: They are mostly the same: Pierre and Tomas. They all share the same trouble of very…
Marco van de Voort wrote 16 lines
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:35:46PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote: >> I'm not waiting or repacking on win9x issues popping up during release >> process anymore. If it is going to be a viable target, people must work and >> test with it also between releases and with trunk. >> >> Same goes for Dos and OS/2 btw. > > Somehow I have the feeling that we (FPC) have more testers for DOS and > OS/2 than for 9x ;) They are mostly the same: Pierre and Tomas. They all share the same trouble of very little activity between releases. The main difference though is that they concern different targets, and do not share a Tier 1 target like win9x

Nevertheless we have (official) testers for those two targets. They take care for them and even add new features (remember Tomas adding support for TProcess to OS/2 some months ago?). That's currently more love than Win9x gets...

Also FreeDOS (on which FPC can run) is an actively developed/distributed platform like is ECOMStation. This is again unlike Win9x.

So in my opinion DOS and OS/2 should not be put into the same bin as Win9x.

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Graeme Geldenhuys: We actually had a look at ReactOS too (about 2 years ago) - but then it was just too…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 12 lines
Hi, On 3 August 2012 15:38, Sven Barth wrote: > > If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even if it > would crash every now and then) before going near a 9x. :) We actually had a look at ReactOS too (about 2 years ago) - but then it was just too unstable. I guess it might be worth taking another look at it, as I remember reading recently that major improvements have been made in it.

In their trunk version they now have USB and WLAN support. Even experimental support for booting ReactOS from an USB stick. Also Lazarus and FPC runs on it, what do you want more ;)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Marco van de Voort: Depends on if your source of machinery is homogenous (e.g. from some enterprise range),…
Marco van de Voort wrote 15 lines
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Sven Barth wrote: >> >> win2000 could run decently with 192MB, but is already deprecated (and was >> always expensive). XP could run with 256MB, but barely, and the >> requirements due to updates have increased over time. 384MB might be >> doable, but I haven't tried in ages. > > If I'd not run Linux on such a machine I'd prefer to use ReactOS (even > if it would crash every now and then) before going near a 9x. :) Depends on if your source of machinery is homogenous (e.g. from some enterprise range), or mis match. I don't know much _practical_ about reactos, but I can imagine driver issues on all sides.

As they are targetting binary compatibility with (currently) Windows 2003 you "just" need to get XP/2003 drivers. Older drivers might work as well (For example I've successfully installed XP drivers for a WebCam on Windows 7, so the NT kernel can handle older drivers quite a bit ;) )

Nevertheless I'm regularily reading their mailing lists and forums and test a trunk version now and then. Especially to see whether Free Pascal and Lazarus run (which they do ;) ).

Also it's magnificient to see a NT based OS booting so lighting fast even on a VM :D (I myself have not yet tried it on hardware, but others have and it's getting more stable by the week)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Sven Barth

Hi,

Sven Barth wrote
Also it's magnificient to see a NT based OS booting so lighting fast even on a VM :D (I myself have not yet tried it on hardware, but others have and it's getting more stable by the week)

I love that too. Does it beat Ubuntu though - I'll have to try it again. Currently on my system (real hardware not a VM) with a SSD boot drive, Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit boots from the GRUB menu to the Unity desktop (fully loaded) in 2 seconds. It's bloody awesome to see! :-) Unfortunately OpenSUSE 12.1 on the same hardware doesn't even come close to that boot time!

Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Graeme Geldenhuys
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 14 lines
Hi, On 3 August 2012 17:23, Sven Barth wrote: > > Also it's magnificient to see a NT based OS booting so lighting fast even on > a VM :D (I myself have not yet tried it on hardware, but others have and > it's getting more stable by the week) I love that too. Does it beat Ubuntu though - I'll have to try it again. Currently on my system (real hardware not a VM) with a SSD boot drive, Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit boots from the GRUB menu to the Unity desktop (fully loaded) in 2 seconds. It's bloody awesome to see! :-) Unfortunately OpenSUSE 12.1 on the same hardware doesn't even come close to that boot time!

On VM it isn't 2 seconds of course, or is it? *goes testing*

On my KVM accelerated QEMU VM it's 6 seconds from the expiring of the boot loader timeout to usable GUI. It might not beat Ubuntu (yet? ;) ), but it's nevertheless rather fast to boot. During normal usage it's sometimes a bit flacky though...

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

William Oliveira Ferreira
to Luiz Americo Pereira Camara: IMO the best time is now (after 1.0). The same for old gtk2 (2.8 etc) Luiz

2012/8/3 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara

Show quoted text 24 lines
Em 3/8/2012 03:30, Bart escreveu: On 8/3/12, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: > > > Removing support for win9x would help cleanup the win32 widgetset >> > I totally agree. > Someday a decision should be made to cut the dead wood. > IMO the best time is now (after 1.0). The same for old gtk2 (2.8 etc) Luiz -- ______________________________**_________________ Lazarus mailing list .**freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.**freepascal.org/mailman/**listinfo/lazarus<http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus>

I don?t know in which version gtk2 is but it?s used on XFCE....

________________________________ William de Oliveira Ferreira -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120803/f6f11a35/attachment.html>

Reply by email

Hans-Peter Diettrich
to Ludo Brands: What about a "new" win9x LCL target. Just clone the win32 target and let it live its own…
Show quoted text 9 lines
> What do we do with Lazarus though? > At least the 1.0 code base would presumably need Win9x support. > > We could e.g. branch it off and have a separate Win9x architecture > branch based on the (to be created) Win9x branch off FPC trunk in > time for 1.2? Or is there a much smarter solution? What about a "new" win9x LCL target. Just clone the win32 target and let it live its own life and stop dragging the win32 LCL down.

What would that mean in detail?

A Win9x platform, to be implemented/supported by FPC. Limited (frozen) system API, 32 bit only, using AnsiStrings natively.

A Lazarus Win9x widgetset, also using AnsiStrings in the components.

Perhaps the biggest difference would be the default and library string type, which can stay UTF-8 for Win9x and Linux, in contrast to UTF-16 for Win32 (and Mac?). This again would encourage two flavors of the RTL, FCL and LCL.

This looks to me more than a decision about the future of the LCL itself, and the RTL/FCL, which may be splitted into UTF-8 and UTF-16 versions.

DoDi

Reply by email

Bart
to Hans-Peter Diettrich
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote
A Lazarus Win9x widgetset, also using AnsiStrings in the components.

That would not be necessary I think.
We have some crude widestring mangager for win9x (win9xwsmanager) in fpc. We have lazutf8.
They work OK on win9x now AFAIK.

It would also mean that calls to SysToUTF8, FindFirstUtf8 in user code must be ifdef-ed to not be used with win9x?

Bart

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Sven Barth: Nevertheless we have (official) testers for those two targets. They take care for them…
Sven Barth wrote 12 lines
> The main difference though is that they concern different targets, and do > not share a Tier 1 target like win9x Nevertheless we have (official) testers for those two targets. They take care for them and even add new features (remember Tomas adding support for TProcess to OS/2 some months ago?). That's currently more love than Win9x gets... Also FreeDOS (on which FPC can run) is an actively developed/distributed platform like is ECOMStation. This is again unlike Win9x. So in my opinion DOS and OS/2 should not be put into the same bin as Win9x.

The category was defined as being mostly active during release engineering.

Dos and OS/2 (but also e.g. Debian) are together responsible for 80% of the post branching and pos RC1 activity. That is disproportionately much.

Win9x has fewer such issues in number, probably because it piggy backs on a major target, but often its issues slip past RC1, causing a Tier 1 target to be rebuild without RC validation (for IMHO next to nothing). At least OS/2 and Dos only risk their own releases.

This is the major reason for the splitting proposal. (

Though again, IMHO we should simply stop support win9x in main builds. Interested people can maintain 3rd party builds for a while for the unhappy few. Technical possibilities (slapping external unicode libraries under it etc etc) enough, but IMHO that will all be talk and tinkering, but will never reach a realistic level of releasable quality.

If people show they can maintain a 3rd party port to win9x for a whole major cycle, we can always revert and split at that point. But IMHO first show is viable, then infrastructural changes.

Reply by email

Hans-Peter Diettrich
to Bart: That would not be necessary I think. We have some crude widestring mangager for win9x…
Show quoted text 8 lines
On 8/3/12, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > A Lazarus Win9x widgetset, also using AnsiStrings in the components. > That would not be necessary I think. We have some crude widestring mangager for win9x (win9xwsmanager) in fpc. We have lazutf8.

Clarification: With AnsiString I mean byte encoding, in contrast to UTF-16 (Wide/UnicodeString).

They work OK on win9x now AFAIK. It would also mean that calls to SysToUTF8, FindFirstUtf8 in user code must be ifdef-ed to not be used with win9x?

UTF-8 is okay. A conversion into Ansi encoding is cheap, if ever required, in contrast to UTF-16 conversion which *always* requires additional memory.

DoDi

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Marco van de Voort: The category was defined as being mostly active during release engineering. Dos and OS/2…
Marco van de Voort wrote 9 lines
Though again, IMHO we should simply stop support win9x in main builds. Interested people can maintain 3rd party builds for a while for the unhappy few. Technical possibilities (slapping external unicode libraries under it etc etc) enough, but IMHO that will all be talk and tinkering, but will never reach a realistic level of releasable quality. If people show they can maintain a 3rd party port to win9x for a whole major cycle, we can always revert and split at that point. But IMHO first show is viable, then infrastructural changes.

You won't hear any critisicm from me regarding this proposal ;)

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email