MS Obsolete API Functions
-
Is there any set MS policy on when obsolete functions are truly obsolete? Due to some Multimedia stuff I'm playing with I've been dabbling with Window's timers including the Multimedia Timer, some functions[^] of which are marked obsolete. These functions still work perfectly on W7 64bit but I don't want to rely on them if they are likely to disappear with the next version of Windows, but I am getting much beter accuracy than with the replacement TimerQueueTimer[^].
Dave
If this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn) -
Is there any set MS policy on when obsolete functions are truly obsolete? Due to some Multimedia stuff I'm playing with I've been dabbling with Window's timers including the Multimedia Timer, some functions[^] of which are marked obsolete. These functions still work perfectly on W7 64bit but I don't want to rely on them if they are likely to disappear with the next version of Windows, but I am getting much beter accuracy than with the replacement TimerQueueTimer[^].
Dave
If this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Erhum. Microsoft is in the business of not pissing people off and therfore maintain support for old programs for probably ever. I once installed an NT3 network driver on 2000 for example. It would also install on win7. So, dont worry, but if you want to be a good boy then use the modern stuff.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Is there any set MS policy on when obsolete functions are truly obsolete? Due to some Multimedia stuff I'm playing with I've been dabbling with Window's timers including the Multimedia Timer, some functions[^] of which are marked obsolete. These functions still work perfectly on W7 64bit but I don't want to rely on them if they are likely to disappear with the next version of Windows, but I am getting much beter accuracy than with the replacement TimerQueueTimer[^].
Dave
If this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Unless they cut ties with the NT Core and completely develop a new OS, I can't see and NT Based API dissappearing in the future, they may mark them as obsolete or deprecated, but I'm sure programs relying on the APIs will will work. Just make sure you're not using threed32.dll ;)
Two heads are better than one.
-
Is there any set MS policy on when obsolete functions are truly obsolete? Due to some Multimedia stuff I'm playing with I've been dabbling with Window's timers including the Multimedia Timer, some functions[^] of which are marked obsolete. These functions still work perfectly on W7 64bit but I don't want to rely on them if they are likely to disappear with the next version of Windows, but I am getting much beter accuracy than with the replacement TimerQueueTimer[^].
Dave
If this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn) -
"XP" is the minimum minimum MSDN will indicate. Everything that was available earlier is tagged "XP".
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
"XP" is the minimum minimum MSDN will indicate. Everything that was available earlier is tagged "XP".
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchypeterchen wrote:
Everything that was available earlier is tagged "XP".
That would make it inaccurate. The function isn't available on Windows earlier than 95 and NT 3.1. But they no longer care. MSDN is as useless (and now inaccurate) as itself.
NULL
-
peterchen wrote:
Everything that was available earlier is tagged "XP".
That would make it inaccurate. The function isn't available on Windows earlier than 95 and NT 3.1. But they no longer care. MSDN is as useless (and now inaccurate) as itself.
NULL
Mechanical wrote:
But they no longer care.
No, they just aren't supported any more. One aspect of not supporting something is that you don't usually include details about it when writing documentation.
-
Mechanical wrote:
But they no longer care.
No, they just aren't supported any more. One aspect of not supporting something is that you don't usually include details about it when writing documentation.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
One aspect of not supporting something is that you don't usually include details about it when writing documentation
I didn't know that. Wouldn't have hurt them one bit including such details. Will definitely help knowing this when I start developing native Windows apps again. Thanks.
NULL
-
Electron Shepherd wrote:
One aspect of not supporting something is that you don't usually include details about it when writing documentation
I didn't know that. Wouldn't have hurt them one bit including such details. Will definitely help knowing this when I start developing native Windows apps again. Thanks.
NULL
Whenever we (the place where I work) replace something in our API, we mark it as deprecated and point users to the replacment methodology. We will usually move the documentation for it to some "out of sight" location but leave it there for 2 versions of our API. After 2 versions, documentation for it gets completely removed and we only provide that documentation if someone can provide us a "valid" reason as to why they need to continue using it with the warning that we no longer guarantee it will continue to work.
-
peterchen wrote:
Everything that was available earlier is tagged "XP".
That would make it inaccurate. The function isn't available on Windows earlier than 95 and NT 3.1. But they no longer care. MSDN is as useless (and now inaccurate) as itself.
NULL
Still better than shoddy man pages, condescending spam-ridden mailing lists and source code gz'ed tarballs.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy