| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 489 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have a few friends who program for a living. They often have complaints about some of their works no longer working in older operating systems as well. Part of the problems may stem from all the new and shiny things folks want added to a program require things that will not work because the older system did not have all the features the newer OS's have as part of them.
And sometimes trying to keep support for two or more versions of programs diminishes support on both.
And how long before Ken realises that working on more than one program is something he cannot afford to do on free upgrades?
Bobb | | | | Do Cheshire Cats drink evaporated milk? |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 524 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mithi: Quote:
It doesn't. If I try to install all I see is an Error-Message:
"This program requires Windows 2000 or above to be installed.
Windows 9x an NT are not supported."
cya, Mithi
PS And I thought I'm antiquated with my Windows 2000 We tested it on Win 98 and ME and it didn't work. The installation stops it, but that is because it has serious issues in those operating systems. -Gerri | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scottiew: Quote:
I paid for the registration with 2.4 and I cannot upgrade bc I don't have XP. So any and all contributions for 2.4 will cease to exist correct?
I am glad so many are happy with the 3.0, but what about those that cannot upgrade in the near future?
Doesn't seem right... Who says you have to have XP to run 3.0? If you're still running 98, then you should upgrade to at least 2000 Pro even if 3.0 wasn't a factor. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lithurge: Quote:
Scottie raised the issue before the haitus, if I remember he also had quite low spec hardware, which was one reason he hadn't upgraded to XP. Its too bad, but you can't expect hardware that is essentially dinosaur vintage to continue to be useful this long. I mean, we've had NT, ME, two versions of 2000, 3 versions of XP, and now 6 variations of Vista, all of which require higher and better levels of hardware to run right. Just how long is software supposed to work that was designed to run on 98 when we've had 4 OS upgrades and 13 variations? Bite the bullet and pry a few bucks out of that wallet and find a copy of Win2000Pro. You may have to add some ram as well (assuming your CPU is OK for W2K), but that's the cheapest way to go. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 52 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scottiew: Quote:
I paid for the registration with 2.4 and I cannot upgrade bc I don't have XP. So any and all contributions for 2.4 will cease to exist correct?
I am glad so many are happy with the 3.0, but what about those that cannot upgrade in the near future?
Doesn't seem right... Windows XP has been the standard operating system for over five years! It is only now being superceded by Windows Vista. Five years is a long time in the computer world. You need to upgrade your operating system. You cannot reasonably expect that software developers are going to program for obsolete systems. |
|