Marco van de Voort wrote:
> On 2004-09-11, Scott Moore <samiam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>>There is a version of IP Pascal that currently works under Linux, and
>>>>a Macintosh OS/10+ version is planned in the near future.
>>>
>>>
>>>XP is known to require a PC of sufficiently recent and commodious
>>>nature.
>>
>>I started IP Pascal on Windows 95, using the Win32 layer. Windows 95
>>was a very difficult target. Over the years, I ac***ulated a series of
>>"workarounds" to deal with the many problems and inconsistencies of
>>using 32 bit mode, on what was essentially a 16 bit operating system
>>with 32 bits grafted on. Many of these problems persisted through
>>Windows 98 and ME. Windows XP is the first general version of Windows
>>that is relatively free of such problems.
>
>
> This is not true. There is also windows 2000. (W2000=NT5, WinXP=5.1
afaik
> win2003=5.2)
I was only speaking of general PC operating systems. This line goes
through Windows 3.0 (the first version capable of 32 bits), 95, 98, ME
and XP. I'm not "anti-NT". Quite the contrary. IP Pascal began life using
the Windows NT 3.x development kit, but by the time I was ready to run
code,
Windows 95 was available, and it clearly was going to be a more widely
used platform.
>
> While windows 2000 was not targeted at the home user market, it was a
general
> release to the cor****ate market, and more im****tantly, widely adapted.
>
> I think it would be easy to sup****t windows 2000 too, since there only a
> handful of issues.
>
I suspect I already do. I haven't verified that.
>
>>maintaining these band-aids, as well as needing to verify all my
software
>>against not only each of the versions, Windows 95, 98 and ME, but even
>>different revisions of each.
>
>
> Understandable, but a pity. Most people still need w9x sup****t. While
(at
> least in Europe and the USA) the normal desktops are typically 1GHz+ and
> 2000 or XP, nearly ever company has some w9x system to e.g. manage some
type
> of hardware (like the telephone system in our company, some machines
that
> connect to certain specialistic printers etc).
>
>
>>Yes (presuming you are not including Linux). Note that Microsoft's
>>stated policy is to unify their platform around Windows XP (which
>>is, after all, in the Windows NT family). So this is the platform
>>going forward.
>
>
> Windows XP and 2003. However that is PR talk. In practice, nearly all
> Microsoft technology works on Windows 2000, or is back****ted to it.
> (which is logical, since XP and 2000 are very alike)
>
Likely IP Pascal does work well on Windows 2000. I'll probably verify
that, if there is interest, and time permitting. In the field of Windows,
my short list of "what to do next", features 64 bit Windows XP. I've
already put a lot of work into AMD 64 bit assembly, and I believe its
the future.
--
Samiam is Scott A. Moore
Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly ****table ISO 7185
Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas
Being right is more powerful than large cor****ations or governments.
The right argument may not be pervasive, but the facts eventually are.
|
