Re: Applications developed with VS2005 do not running under Windows 98?

From: Lau Lei Cheong (leu_lc_at_yehoo.com.hk)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:27:21 +0800

"Stu Smith" <stuarts@nospam-digita.com> ¦b¶l¥ó
news:%23ZRMuK1YEHA.3892@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl ¤¤¼¶¼g...
>
> "Lau Lei Cheong" <leu_lc@yehoo.com.hk> wrote in message
> news:%23ywzHGzYEHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > As a matter of fact, believe it or not, some of our customers are still
> > using accounting softwares written by Clipper(i.e.: DOS application).
>
> Yes, but they aren't running on DOS. Windows is (mostly)
> backwards-compatible so your application doesn't have to be.
>
Although I agree with you, but in fact they're still running DOS 6.22 genuie
copy.

> > To my understanding, about more than 60% of computers in companies of
Hong
> > Kong are still using Win9X because they brought the OEM version(which's
> > prize is cheaper) when they bought their computer. If they need to
upgrade
>
> In general, the sort of people who can't afford to upgrade Windows are
also
> the sort of people who can't afford your software.
Maybe, but considering the words "to buy new software" and "to upgrade
existing
software" still have some difference.

> Remember also that figure is based on sales figures -- plenty of people
have
> upgraded using pirated copies of XP.
True. But I'll say that still lots of companies whats to stick with genuie
version
because of the heavy penalty for companies violating the law.

And although I'm living in a city with easy access to pivated copies of XP,
I
have chosen not to install it on my PC at home because 1) my PC is not good
enough 2) I also use Linux, Linux works perfectly with FAT32 but is readonly
for NTFS5. And WinXP can only format partitions less than 32GB which is too
small for me. (although I heard that we can trick WinXP to format a larger
FAT32
partition) 3)Some programs(especially games)can run in Win98 but not WinXP
For example, I've tried compatibility mode in WinXP with a game from KOEI
but it
continuously crashes and I had no way to run it properly.

I believe that some companies refuse to upgrade to WinXP for similar
reasons.

> > in order to use newest software, they'll more likely to stick with the
> > existing solution rather than upgrading unless they need to replace
their
> > computer. That means if we now try to program anything that do not
support
> > Win9X, we're making ourselve less competitive than other software firms.
> So
> > what's the point for us software programmers to spend money to buy
> something
> > that will reduce our competitiveness to other competitor?
>
> Spend the money you saved by developing in .NET, on buying a few key
> customers Windows upgrades?
>
Err... any strong points on savings in developing in .NET framework 2.0 over
.NET framwork 1.1?
Actually I didn't do any serious reading on .NET 2.0 as it's still beta
release
which also means there may still be changes to be made.

> I think there's a danger that projects start off with a requirement to
> support a 7-year-old OS. By the time dev is complete (and into v2 or v3
> versions, the first version that a lot of people will buy), the OS is 10
> years old, and the choice of dev tools is now a stone around your neck.
The
> 60% figure has turned to 10% and it's time for re-engineering that could
> have been avoided by a little forward-thinking. (Of course, the business
> case for the re-engineer specifies NT as the minimum instead of '95, and
the
> cycle continues).
>
Good point. I agree with you but I should point out that the development
cycle
for my company is relatively smaller - about 3-6 months. That's why we
should
still consider whether there's immediate need for the upgrade to VS 2005.

> > For WinNT, the situation is rather obvious. Lots of companies especially
> > banks still using them. If we exclude support for WinNT, we maybe
missing
> > some protential customers.
>
> The question really is why have they stuck with NT? Often it's for fear of
> breaking something. You sometimes get customers telling you that the
program
> has to run on NT because that's what they use, and then when they come to
> install it, they won't put it on one of their 'stable' machines, so they
> install it on a new XP box anyway.
That's also true.

>
>
> Stu
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scalable processor support
    ... Hey, are you saying that Tosiba laptops don't come with XP Pro, and you have ... to upgrade from Home Edition? ... The upgrade from WinXP Home to WinXP Pro, in particular, almost ... Windows XP Home Edition vs. Professional Edition ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release
    ... Debian is very well behaved if you upgrade between ... Libraries that were bleeding edge ... If I deploy a server at a customers site and just firewall it ... are very few bugs in it, ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: Upgrading from 98SE
    ... Bruce is correct, going into much detail, leaving you the choice ... Theoretically, yes, the WinXP Upgrade would work for you, at least ... If you turn off all of WinXP GUI ... safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Upgrading from Windows ME to XP Pro
    ... rather than upgrade over an earlier OS. ... WinXP, rather than performing a clean installation, if you've no ... would be to partition your driveroughly as follows: ... second operating system on the second hard drive. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Cannot migrate from W98 to XP Pro.
    ... Additionally, if the WinXP upgrade advisor says the computer's components aren't capable of supporting WinXP, you can't. ... WinXP, like WinNT and Win2K before it, is quite sensitive to borderline defective or substandard hardware (particularly motherboards, RAM and hard drives) that will still support Win9x. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers)
Quantcast