Discussion:
Inno Setup no longer supports Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-02 09:03:51 UTC
Permalink
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

--
Martin
2012-08-02 11:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Bart
2012-08-02 17:21:43 UTC
Permalink
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

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-02 17:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
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.
Post by Bart
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


--
Mattias Gaertner
2012-08-02 17:50:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:38:47 +0200
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Post by Bart
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

--
Martin
2012-08-02 18:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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



--
Mattias Gaertner
2012-08-02 18:17:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:13:50 +0100
Post by Martin
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Martin
2012-08-02 18:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattias Gaertner
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


--
Bart
2012-08-02 18:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
...
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
So have you or anybody else on ME tried the installer? Otherwise WinME
should be removed from the list as well...
Post by Bart
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

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-02 18:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Bart
2012-08-02 19:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
... 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).
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-02 20:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Bart
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.
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
... 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.
Post by Bart
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 ;)
Post by Bart
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.
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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 ;)
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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 ;)
Post by Bart
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


--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bart,
Post by Bart
It won't stop me from trying to contribute
Good for you - I commend you for doing so.
--
Regards,
- Graeme -


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

--
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-08-02 20:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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


--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-02 20:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported
for ages?
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
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
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.
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
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.
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-02 20:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
response</aside>
a. an idiotic decision if there is a large number of Win9x users
2.4.2 didn't work on win9x afaik. Only a handful noticed, afaik all of which
were SVN users that could patch/compile their own


--
Bart
2012-08-03 06:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
2.4.2 didn't work on win9x afaik. Only a handful noticed, afaik all of
You mean Win9x I guess.
All fpc's up and til 2.6.0 still run fine on at least WinMe (don't
know about Win98, can't test that).

Bart

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 09:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Marco van de Voort
2.4.2 didn't work on win9x afaik. Only a handful noticed, afaik all of
You mean Win9x I guess.
All fpc's up and til 2.6.0 still run fine on at least WinMe (don't
know about Win98, can't test that).
Ah ok. So I could have taken win95 as win9x in general in some msgs.

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
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

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 09:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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 :-)


--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 10:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Marco van de Voort
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

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 14:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
Post by Marco van de Voort
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


--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 14:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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 :)

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 14:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Marco van de Voort
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.

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-02 20:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Bart
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
Post by Bart
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.

--
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
2012-08-03 01:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Ehmm.. I'm trying to contain myself, but WHY does Lazarus 1 and 1+ even
support Win9x/ME anymore?
...
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Bart
2012-08-03 06:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
Removing support for win9x would help cleanup the win32 widgetset
I totally agree.
Someday a decision should be made to cut the dead wood.

Bart

--
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
2012-08-03 15:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
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

--
William Oliveira Ferreira
2012-08-03 17:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
Post by Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
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
http://lists.lazarus.**freepascal.org/mailman/**listinfo/lazarus<http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus>
I donÂŽt know in which version gtk2 is but itÂŽs used on XFCE....
--
________________________________
William de Oliveira Ferreira
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
2012-08-02 18:35:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reinier Olislagers
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:28:05 UTC
Permalink
On 2 August 2012 19:35, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
Post by Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
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

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 08:43:55 UTC
Permalink
HI,
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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?).
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Henry Vermaak
2012-08-03 09:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
HI,
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
m***@wisa.be
2012-08-03 09:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Vermaak
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
HI,
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-03 09:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Vermaak
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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
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

--
Bart
2012-08-03 09:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 10:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
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.


--
Bart
2012-08-03 12:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
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

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 10:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Bart
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

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-08-03 11:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Bart
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.
Post by Bart
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]

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 10:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
(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

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:54:22 UTC
Permalink
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

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Henry Vermaak
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.
Post by Henry Vermaak
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

--
Henry Vermaak
2012-08-03 10:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
Post by Henry Vermaak
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.
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Henry Vermaak
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.
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 14:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry Vermaak
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


--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 14:55:37 UTC
Permalink
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

--
Henry Vermaak
2012-08-03 15:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Henry Vermaak
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 :)

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-03 09:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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


--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 09:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Reinier Olislagers
1. do these clients then use Lazarus applications or others like fpGUI
Both. We have applications created with LCL which pre-dates fpGUI.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 09:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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)


--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-03 11:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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 ;)
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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

--
Ludo Brands
2012-08-03 11:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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


--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-08-03 11:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludo Brands
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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]

--
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-08-03 21:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ludo Brands
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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


--
Bart
2012-08-04 10:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

--
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-08-04 13:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
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).
Post by Bart
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


--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 11:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Post by Marco van de Voort
(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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.


--
Bart
2012-08-03 12:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
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
I wasn't whining. Imerely tested and noticed.

Bart

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 14:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Post by Marco van de Voort
(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.
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 14:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Marco van de Voort
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

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 16:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Marco van de Voort
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

--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-04 12:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Marco van de Voort
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.

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-04 14:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
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

--

Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 11:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-03 12:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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.


--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 09:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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 :_)
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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.
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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.
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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.

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 10:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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. ;-)
Post by Marco van de Voort
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!!
Post by Marco van de Voort
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

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 14:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Reinier Olislagers
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 :_)
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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


--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 14:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
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

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 16:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
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


--
Marco van de Voort
2012-08-03 15:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Marco van de Voort
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.

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 16:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco van de Voort
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Marco van de Voort
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


--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 16:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
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

--
Sven Barth
2012-08-03 17:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
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


--
Bernd Mueller
2012-08-03 08:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bart
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.



--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-08-03 08:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Bart
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

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-08-03 09:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
Post by Bart
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



--
waldo kitty
2012-08-03 14:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
Post by Bart
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...
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
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 ;)

--
Bart
2012-08-02 16:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
<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)

--
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...