Platform sdk?
-
Where is it possible for one to get all previous versions of the platform sdk specifically November 2001 version? I installed the latest to find out that you have to have windowsxp??? to even use it??? What the hell is this? A way for MS to force developers and users to upgrade to the newest and latest OS to add more cash into Gates pockets? Would they think keeping it cross-platform? RC.EXE doesn't run on 98?? When I develop for win98 on up I would like to develop on the least common denominator!! Duh! Makes it simple and easy that way. Frustrated MS-Wanker dev/user.:mad:
Jay Beckert wrote: When I develop for win98 on up I would like to develop on the least common denominator!! Duh! Makes it simple and easy that way. If you are really developing for Windows 98, you should have a Win98 test system, not a Win98 development platform. If you haven't noticed, Win98 is a consumer platform, not a professional platform like NT-based OS. Making a compiler on a system feature-limited OS is hard enough. If you read through books like "Programming Applications for Windows", you would understand the limitations on the OS scheme of things when referring to Win9x and NT. Jay Beckert wrote: A way for MS to force developers and users to upgrade to the newest and latest OS to add more cash into Gates pockets? Man, if I see this quote, I know that you might not have any intention to listen what I have to say as logical as it may sound.:suss: Frank Frank@Frank-L.com Bason Computer, Inc.
-
Where is it possible for one to get all previous versions of the platform sdk specifically November 2001 version? I installed the latest to find out that you have to have windowsxp??? to even use it??? What the hell is this? A way for MS to force developers and users to upgrade to the newest and latest OS to add more cash into Gates pockets? Would they think keeping it cross-platform? RC.EXE doesn't run on 98?? When I develop for win98 on up I would like to develop on the least common denominator!! Duh! Makes it simple and easy that way. Frustrated MS-Wanker dev/user.:mad:
Jay Beckert wrote: I installed the latest to find out that you have to have windowsxp Are you sure? I think it works fine on NT4 and Win2k too. Jay Beckert wrote: RC.EXE doesn't run on 98 It's the same thing with VS.NET, does'nt work on Win95/98/ME, but I can't see why anyone wanna develop on the os'es anyway. I mean, at work we develop on Win2k and WinXP, but we test our applications on Win98, and sometimes we use remote debugging when something don't work on Win98. But develop on it? No way! I have developed on NT-based systems since NT4 was released, but I can still remember how often Win95 (and 3.11) crashed. - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Jay Beckert wrote: I installed the latest to find out that you have to have windowsxp Are you sure? I think it works fine on NT4 and Win2k too. Jay Beckert wrote: RC.EXE doesn't run on 98 It's the same thing with VS.NET, does'nt work on Win95/98/ME, but I can't see why anyone wanna develop on the os'es anyway. I mean, at work we develop on Win2k and WinXP, but we test our applications on Win98, and sometimes we use remote debugging when something don't work on Win98. But develop on it? No way! I have developed on NT-based systems since NT4 was released, but I can still remember how often Win95 (and 3.11) crashed. - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
Anders Molin wrote: It's the same thing with VS.NET, does'nt work on Win95/98/ME, but I can't see why anyone wanna develop on the os'es anyway. At work we use Win2k, but at home I thought why not kill two birds with stone. So I take it that I should be dev on NT based systems anyway?
-
Anders Molin wrote: It's the same thing with VS.NET, does'nt work on Win95/98/ME, but I can't see why anyone wanna develop on the os'es anyway. At work we use Win2k, but at home I thought why not kill two birds with stone. So I take it that I should be dev on NT based systems anyway?
Jay Beckert wrote: So I take it that I should be dev on NT based systems anyway? Well, I guess you know it from work ;-) NT-Based systems almost never crashes :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Jay Beckert wrote: So I take it that I should be dev on NT based systems anyway? Well, I guess you know it from work ;-) NT-Based systems almost never crashes :) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
well, I never gave it much thought as to why. I thought it would be just easy to do it testing and dev on one OS. I'm still not going to use XP! Rather use Win2k.
-
Jay Beckert wrote: When I develop for win98 on up I would like to develop on the least common denominator!! Duh! Makes it simple and easy that way. If you are really developing for Windows 98, you should have a Win98 test system, not a Win98 development platform. If you haven't noticed, Win98 is a consumer platform, not a professional platform like NT-based OS. Making a compiler on a system feature-limited OS is hard enough. If you read through books like "Programming Applications for Windows", you would understand the limitations on the OS scheme of things when referring to Win9x and NT. Jay Beckert wrote: A way for MS to force developers and users to upgrade to the newest and latest OS to add more cash into Gates pockets? Man, if I see this quote, I know that you might not have any intention to listen what I have to say as logical as it may sound.:suss: Frank Frank@Frank-L.com Bason Computer, Inc.
Frank Liao wrote: Making a compiler on a system feature-limited OS is hard enough. That is completely wrong. If you read the original post, the subject is the resource compiler, which used to run on 9x just fine. The resource compiler isn't that complex, and I do not for a second believe it evolved so drastically between Nov 2001 and now that it can no longer run properly on 9x. MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
-
Frank Liao wrote: Making a compiler on a system feature-limited OS is hard enough. That is completely wrong. If you read the original post, the subject is the resource compiler, which used to run on 9x just fine. The resource compiler isn't that complex, and I do not for a second believe it evolved so drastically between Nov 2001 and now that it can no longer run properly on 9x. MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
Michael Dunn wrote: MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. I think it is not a day to late to kill off the 9x versions. And for a hobby pogrammer who uses it and are not interested in NT, why would they even need the latest PSDK's? /M
- Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
-
Michael Dunn wrote: MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. I think it is not a day to late to kill off the 9x versions. And for a hobby pogrammer who uses it and are not interested in NT, why would they even need the latest PSDK's? /M
- Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
loket wrote: why would they even need the latest PSDK's? To use common control v5 and 6 features, for one thing. To use other IE features and COM interfaces introduced after v4 for another. --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
-
Michael Dunn wrote: MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. I think it is not a day to late to kill off the 9x versions. And for a hobby pogrammer who uses it and are not interested in NT, why would they even need the latest PSDK's? /M
- Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
loket wrote: I think it is not a day to late to kill off the 9x versions. And for a hobby pogrammer who uses it and are not interested in NT, why would they even need the latest PSDK's? What if your not a hobby programmer, not developing for NT and your base OS is 98? Latest SDKs to apply new features that do work for 98 as well as XP? I know alot of clients not even using Win2k or even XP. Just makes sense to me to dev on the OS your designing for. We use Win2k at work as well as 98 - both with VC.
-
Jay Beckert wrote: I installed the latest to find out that you have to have windowsxp Are you sure? I think it works fine on NT4 and Win2k too. Jay Beckert wrote: RC.EXE doesn't run on 98 It's the same thing with VS.NET, does'nt work on Win95/98/ME, but I can't see why anyone wanna develop on the os'es anyway. I mean, at work we develop on Win2k and WinXP, but we test our applications on Win98, and sometimes we use remote debugging when something don't work on Win98. But develop on it? No way! I have developed on NT-based systems since NT4 was released, but I can still remember how often Win95 (and 3.11) crashed. - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
That's ok. I just got back and got the November 2001 SDK CD from work. ;P
-
Frank Liao wrote: Making a compiler on a system feature-limited OS is hard enough. That is completely wrong. If you read the original post, the subject is the resource compiler, which used to run on 9x just fine. The resource compiler isn't that complex, and I do not for a second believe it evolved so drastically between Nov 2001 and now that it can no longer run properly on 9x. MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
Michael Dunn wrote: MS is trying to kill off 9x, plain and simple. (I've already given my opinion on this a few times, so I won't start ranting again.) Too bad that hobbyist programmers who can't afford (or just don't want to use) NT have to suffer. I have no use for NT at home although I have the install CD. I hate the bloated fisher price XP OS and what if I need to reinstall from a hard drive crash or new HD, MB, etc. I have to call MS to get it reactivated? LOL I don't think so.
-
well, I never gave it much thought as to why. I thought it would be just easy to do it testing and dev on one OS. I'm still not going to use XP! Rather use Win2k.
-
loket wrote: why would they even need the latest PSDK's? To use common control v5 and 6 features, for one thing. To use other IE features and COM interfaces introduced after v4 for another. --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
Michael Dunn wrote: loket wrote: why would they even need the latest PSDK's? To use common control v5 and 6 features, for one thing. To use other IE features and COM interfaces introduced after v4 for another. But is there anything in the latest PSDK, who doesn't work on 9x systems, that you could test on 9x systems? I dont think a 9x hobbyprogrammer will use anything, or should use anything, that does not work on his system. /M
- Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
-
loket wrote: why would they even need the latest PSDK's? To use common control v5 and 6 features, for one thing. To use other IE features and COM interfaces introduced after v4 for another. --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
You can still force your compiler to use the older version by defining a simple _WIN32_WINDOWS to 0x0410 (W98) http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sdkintro/sdkintro/using_the_sdk_headers.asp?frame=true[^] what should keep msvc to use v6 of comctl. To the original poster: Try ftp.microsoft.com. It is kind of a dump for old and unsupported tools (ms uses download.microsoft.com for file transfer now) and I think there is at least an october version of the w2k psdk.
-
You can still force your compiler to use the older version by defining a simple _WIN32_WINDOWS to 0x0410 (W98) http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sdkintro/sdkintro/using_the_sdk_headers.asp?frame=true[^] what should keep msvc to use v6 of comctl. To the original poster: Try ftp.microsoft.com. It is kind of a dump for old and unsupported tools (ms uses download.microsoft.com for file transfer now) and I think there is at least an october version of the w2k psdk.
Colin Leitner wrote: To the original poster: Try ftp.microsoft.com. It is kind of a dump for old and unsupported tools (ms uses download.microsoft.com for file transfer now) and I think there is at least an october version of the w2k psdk. I thought so to but it's not there anymore. You have to use the psdk update site or get the cd.