Supporting Windows 98 in application development [modified]
-
Francois Searle wrote:
I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused:
It ranks right up there with using horseradish eyedrops... X|
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Shog9 wrote:
horseradish eyedrops
???? :wtf: There used to be horseraddish eyedrops? It (sometimes) already causes tears just by eating... Cheers Martin
"When your own heart asks - how will you respond?" Gosen waka shū "Situation normal - all fu***d up" Illuminatus! My photos on flickr
-
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused: I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois -- modified at 18:06 Friday 16th June, 2006 (The custom app is "sold" on a monthly rental basis)
Francois Searle wrote:
was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications.
Well, this is just like the old days of Windows 3.1 and WIN 32 of which I was bit and wasted a lot of time! The time and effort you take to make your application compatible with technology that is older than 6 years, usually will not provide a return on investment. If however, you move your sights to advancements in technology, by the time you are shipping they are the current technology standards and you are ahead of the game. In the Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 (and later) battle, I worked hard to keep my software compatible only to please a handful of clients, which did not generate enough revenue to justify the work, not to mention those that I lost high end of the technology since I was not focusing on all the new abilities of the OS. In a retro look, it appears I would have gained more by focusing on WIN 32 and scrapping the old WIN16 stuff. Will not make that mistake again. If you target future and current technologies, you are ready to handle those who spend money to stay current and are usually apt to purchase new or upgrade their software. On the flip side, if you waste time making sure you are compatible for the those who are lagging in technology more than six years, then it is usually obvious they are "not" apt to upgrade or buy new software. While there are exceptions to the rule, most are just cheap or in industries that are having hard times. You probably will generate more revenue from the movers than the laggers. Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Francois Searle wrote:
was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications.
Well, this is just like the old days of Windows 3.1 and WIN 32 of which I was bit and wasted a lot of time! The time and effort you take to make your application compatible with technology that is older than 6 years, usually will not provide a return on investment. If however, you move your sights to advancements in technology, by the time you are shipping they are the current technology standards and you are ahead of the game. In the Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 (and later) battle, I worked hard to keep my software compatible only to please a handful of clients, which did not generate enough revenue to justify the work, not to mention those that I lost high end of the technology since I was not focusing on all the new abilities of the OS. In a retro look, it appears I would have gained more by focusing on WIN 32 and scrapping the old WIN16 stuff. Will not make that mistake again. If you target future and current technologies, you are ready to handle those who spend money to stay current and are usually apt to purchase new or upgrade their software. On the flip side, if you waste time making sure you are compatible for the those who are lagging in technology more than six years, then it is usually obvious they are "not" apt to upgrade or buy new software. While there are exceptions to the rule, most are just cheap or in industries that are having hard times. You probably will generate more revenue from the movers than the laggers. Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
I agree with your point. Also made by Joe. But Joe brought up a good point about a Niche market! I my case it is quite a niche market - there is no need to upgrade in some cases as the PC is working fine and doing the job. The software is "sold" on a monthly rental basis so they are always bringing in revenue. Discontinuing Win98 will therefore stop the income. BUT I don't want to say "I was not focusing on all the new abilities of the OS." in a years time! Francois
-
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused: I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois -- modified at 18:06 Friday 16th June, 2006 (The custom app is "sold" on a monthly rental basis)
Is There anybody out there still with Windows 98? Al My eMail control My Blog
-
Francois Searle wrote:
I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused:
It ranks right up there with using horseradish eyedrops... X|
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
Shog9 wrote:
horseradish eyedrops
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::omg::omg: Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
-
Is There anybody out there still with Windows 98? Al My eMail control My Blog
I've seen (within the last month) someone using an accounting package on DOS 2.11. So anything's possible! Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
-
I've seen (within the last month) someone using an accounting package on DOS 2.11. So anything's possible! Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
Rob Manderson wrote:
accounting package on DOS 2.11
:omg:
-
End If
-
Francois Searle wrote:
I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications.
Depends on the customers, I guess :) Some of our customers still use Win95, and show no interest in upgrading.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Some of our customers still use Win95, and show no interest in upgrading.
:~ That's like clinging on to DOS. Really.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
I've seen (within the last month) someone using an accounting package on DOS 2.11. So anything's possible! Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
DOS 2.11??? What did it run on? Eniac? :rolleyes: I haven't used DOS 2.11 since.. uh. the 80's. -- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Last modified: den 16 juni 2006 18:15:44 --
-
DOS 2.11??? What did it run on? Eniac? :rolleyes: I haven't used DOS 2.11 since.. uh. the 80's. -- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Last modified: den 16 juni 2006 18:15:44 --
Neither have I. It was a really really really ancient Compaq that looked like it was on it's last legs. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
-
DOS 2.11??? What did it run on? Eniac? :rolleyes: I haven't used DOS 2.11 since.. uh. the 80's. -- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Last modified: den 16 juni 2006 18:15:44 --
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I haven't used DOS 2.11 since.. uh. the 80's.
I didn't start using DOS until 5.0 around 1991. Used a Commodore 64 and 128 up to that point. What a major upgrade that was to the 386DX-25mhz with 4 megs of ram and an 80 meg harddrive :-D
-
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused: I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois -- modified at 18:06 Friday 16th June, 2006 (The custom app is "sold" on a monthly rental basis)
Francois Searle wrote:
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois
I'm told luddites don't pay all that well.
“Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully”
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Some of our customers still use Win95, and show no interest in upgrading.
:~ That's like clinging on to DOS. Really.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
I bet they still offer animal sacrifices for their sins to.:laugh:
"You have an arrow in your butt!" - Fiona:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog[^]CPhog. The act of using CPhog (Firefox)[^] alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog (Firefox)[^] and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
-
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused: I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois -- modified at 18:06 Friday 16th June, 2006 (The custom app is "sold" on a monthly rental basis)
Win98 should not be supported. It should be given its last rites, a pleasant memorial service, and then we should speak of it no more. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused: I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois -- modified at 18:06 Friday 16th June, 2006 (The custom app is "sold" on a monthly rental basis)
Won't touch it, not a chance. If asked, I will say 'do you want it to look like it was written in 1998 ? If so, that's your call, it's your dime'. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Hi I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused: I am wanting to migrate to SQLEXPRESS (from MSDE) to use some of the new features - but SQLEXPRESS does not support Win98 so I am then forced to drop Win98 and only support Win2000 SP4 upwards. At this same time I may loose some clients that may choose not to upgrade their OS. Francois -- modified at 18:06 Friday 16th June, 2006 (The custom app is "sold" on a monthly rental basis)
That's one of the reasons I don't use .NET at all. By the way, the .NET 3.0 announcement makes clear to the careful reader that it will not support Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP1 either (simply because WinFX only installs on XP SP2 and up). MeSays, more power for those who really care about their customers, those who have zero reason to buy a new computer in the years to come.
-
I bet they still offer animal sacrifices for their sins to.:laugh:
"You have an arrow in your butt!" - Fiona:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog[^]CPhog. The act of using CPhog (Firefox)[^] alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog (Firefox)[^] and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
Well, if they leave the virgins for their software vendors, I might be tempted to change my attitude towards DOS :cool:
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Francois Searle wrote:
I was wondering what everyone's view is on still supporting Windows 98 (incl. SE) with their applications. :confused:
It ranks right up there with using horseradish eyedrops... X|
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
I've seen (within the last month) someone using an accounting package on DOS 2.11. So anything's possible! Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^]
That's not surprising. The place where I buy tires for my car and truck used a DOS-based shop package up until about a year ago. Places like this buy one package and it's usually a bitch to get working right (at least from their perspective). Once they're familiar with it they aren't going to change until they're forced to.
Software Zen:
delete this;