www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Windows 2000 support

reply Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> writes:
it's time to make a decision. Original comment: 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212#issuecomment-5827106

So what we will do with Windows 2000? Personally I don't like this pull 
request (druntime pull 212). It makes not-very-good-looking druntime 
uglier. I'd like voting about this to be done. Something like:

1. Officially announce that minimum supported Windows version is 5.1 
(aka XP) since v2.053
   1. Add link like "Email  denis-sh to get D stuff with partial support 
for Windows 2000".
   2. Just call all Windows 2000 users dinosaurs.

2. [A bit improve and] Merge this pull and officially announce that 
Windows 2000 is partially supported.

3. Maniacally add full Windows 2000 support.

4. Leave Issue 6024 opened forever.



And from my next comment 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212#issuecomment-5827146:
Oh, it's few days more than a year Windows 2000 is silently unsupported!

Links:
* http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024


-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
Jun 05 2012
next sibling parent reply mta`chrono <chrono mta-international.net> writes:
Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if druntime will
support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least require
Windows XP.
Jun 05 2012
next sibling parent reply Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, mta`chrono <chrono mta-international.net>wrote:


 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if druntime will
 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least require
 Windows XP.


+1

-- 
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.
Jun 05 2012
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 05-06-2012 16:52, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, mta`chrono <chrono mta-international.net
 <mailto:chrono mta-international.net>> wrote:

     Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if druntime will
     support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least require
     Windows XP.


 +1

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.


Agreed.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org
Jun 05 2012
parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 05.06.2012 18:57, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 05-06-2012 16:52, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, mta`chrono <chrono mta-international.net
 <mailto:chrono mta-international.net>> wrote:

 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if druntime will
 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least require
 Windows XP.


 +1

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.


 Agreed.


Same here, just make it official and be done with it.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 05 2012
next sibling parent reply Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchanyan gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> wr=
ote:

 On 05.06.2012 18:57, Alex R=C3=B8nne Petersen wrote:

 On 05-06-2012 16:52, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, mta`chrono <chrono mta-international.ne=






t

 <mailto:chrono mta-international.net>> wrote:

 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if druntime wil=






l

 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least require
 Windows XP.


 +1

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.



 Agreed.


 Same here, just make it official and be done with it.

 --
 Dmitry Olshansky



So, the set of supported operating systems will be:
1. Windows XP +
2. POSIX

If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
universal operating system interface for all operating systems.

--
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.
Jun 05 2012
next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 05.06.2012 19:31, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dmitry Olshansky<dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  wrote:

 On 05.06.2012 18:57, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 05-06-2012 16:52, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, mta`chrono<chrono mta-international.net
 <mailto:chrono mta-international.net>>  wrote:

 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if druntime will
 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least require
 Windows XP.


 +1

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.



 Agreed.


 Same here, just make it official and be done with it.

 --
 Dmitry Olshansky



 So, the set of supported operating systems will be:
 1. Windows XP +
 2. POSIX

 If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
 universal operating system interface for all operating systems.


If POSIX standardization was ever successful. If all you need is covered 
by oldish Unix interface, if ... And there is ton of small details that 
try to stub you in the eye while porting from say Linux to OS X.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 05 2012
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 19:34:38 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
 universal operating system interface for all operating systems.


 
 If POSIX standardization was ever successful. If all you need is covered
 by oldish Unix interface, if ... And there is ton of small details that
 try to stub you in the eye while porting from say Linux to OS X.


When writing std.datetime, I was shocked to find out that Mac OS X doesn't have 
the librt functions in spite of the fact that they're POSIX. My guess is that 
they're from some version of POSIX that Mac OS X doesn't support, but 
regardless, the fact that something is POSIX doesn't seem to actually 
guarantee much. It puts you in the general ballpark of your stuff working if 
it's using POSIX stuff, but you have to make it sure (and potentially tweak) 
everything that you do which relies on POSIX functionality for each OS to make 
sure that it functions correctly. All you have to do is go through druntime 
and see all of the differences between each of the POSIX systems to see how 
much they vary, in spite of the fact that they're all supposedly following the 
POSIX standard.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-06-05 17:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:


 When writing std.datetime, I was shocked to find out that Mac OS X doesn't have
 the librt functions in spite of the fact that they're POSIX. My guess is that
 they're from some version of POSIX that Mac OS X doesn't support, but
 regardless, the fact that something is POSIX doesn't seem to actually
 guarantee much. It puts you in the general ballpark of your stuff working if
 it's using POSIX stuff, but you have to make it sure (and potentially tweak)
 everything that you do which relies on POSIX functionality for each OS to make
 sure that it functions correctly. All you have to do is go through druntime
 and see all of the differences between each of the POSIX systems to see how
 much they vary, in spite of the fact that they're all supposedly following the
 POSIX standard.

 - Jonathan M Davis


The Posix support on Mac OS X isn't the best. I think it was pretty bad 
in Mac OS X 10.4. In 10.5 it got a lot better. I think it's getting 
better in each version.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jun 05 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2012 at 15:48:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 19:34:38 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
 universal operating system interface for all operating 
 systems.


 
 If POSIX standardization was ever successful. If all you need 
 is covered
 by oldish Unix interface, if ... And there is ton of small 
 details that
 try to stub you in the eye while porting from say Linux to OS 
 X.


 When writing std.datetime, I was shocked to find out that Mac 
 OS X doesn't have
 the librt functions in spite of the fact that they're POSIX. My 
 guess is that
 they're from some version of POSIX that Mac OS X doesn't 
 support, but
 regardless, the fact that something is POSIX doesn't seem to 
 actually
 guarantee much. It puts you in the general ballpark of your 
 stuff working if
 it's using POSIX stuff, but you have to make it sure (and 
 potentially tweak)
 everything that you do which relies on POSIX functionality for 
 each OS to make
 sure that it functions correctly. All you have to do is go 
 through druntime
 and see all of the differences between each of the POSIX 
 systems to see how
 much they vary, in spite of the fact that they're all 
 supposedly following the
 POSIX standard.

 - Jonathan M Davis


This is the hard reality of UNIX systems, that many aren't aware 
of
because they only know one specific system.

Long time ago, 1999-2003, I had my share of pain supporting 
server applications across Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD 
besides Windows.

The one that gave us more headaches was HP-UX, due to the archaic 
compiler available on the system and the 32-64 bit transition 
happening on those days.

--
Paulo
Jun 05 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-06-06 00:36, Paulo Pinto wrote:


 This is the hard reality of UNIX systems, that many aren't aware of
 because they only know one specific system.

 Long time ago, 1999-2003, I had my share of pain supporting server
 applications across Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD besides Windows.

 The one that gave us more headaches was HP-UX, due to the archaic
 compiler available on the system and the 32-64 bit transition happening
 on those days.


That's one thing that Mac OS X got right, handling multiple 
architectures. Universal binaries (executables and (dynamic) libraries) 
that contain code for multiple architectures. Basically all system 
libraries are compiled for both 32 and 64bit (and most for PowerPC as 
well). It really doesn't matter if you compile your code in 32 or 64bit, 
it just works.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jun 06 2012
parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 11:04:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2012-06-06 00:36, Paulo Pinto wrote:


 This is the hard reality of UNIX systems, that many aren't 
 aware of
 because they only know one specific system.

 Long time ago, 1999-2003, I had my share of pain supporting 
 server
 applications across Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD besides 
 Windows.

 The one that gave us more headaches was HP-UX, due to the 
 archaic
 compiler available on the system and the 32-64 bit transition 
 happening
 on those days.


 That's one thing that Mac OS X got right, handling multiple 
 architectures. Universal binaries (executables and (dynamic) 
 libraries) that contain code for multiple architectures. 
 Basically all system libraries are compiled for both 32 and 
 64bit (and most for PowerPC as well). It really doesn't matter 
 if you compile your code in 32 or 64bit, it just works.


Another possibility is to follow something like Native Oberon had.

Use bytecodes as executable file format, and compile on the 
installation.

This brings simpler executable file formats, but requires some 
form of compiler as part of the operating system, and forces 
everyone to use the same compiler.

--
Paulo
Jun 06 2012
prev sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2012 at 15:32:05 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dmitry Olshansky 
 <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> wrote:

 On 05.06.2012 18:57, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 05-06-2012 16:52, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, mta`chrono 
 <chrono mta-international.net
 <mailto:chrono mta-international.net>> wrote:

 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if 
 druntime will
 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at 
 least require
 Windows XP.


 +1

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.



 Agreed.


 Same here, just make it official and be done with it.

 --
 Dmitry Olshansky



 So, the set of supported operating systems will be:
 1. Windows XP +
 2. POSIX

 If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
 universal operating system interface for all operating systems.

 --
 Bye,
 Gor Gyolchanyan.



Forgetting, of course, that there are many industrial operating
systems that don't fully support POSIX, if at all.

Or that even with POSIX, the support is not the same across all
commercial UNIX systems.

I like UNIX and POSIX, but that is not the universal API that 
many think.

--
Paulo
Jun 05 2012
prev sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 19:31 +0400, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
[...]


 If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
 universal operating system interface for all operating systems.


On the other hand, Windows represents something of the order of 85% of
all shipped workstations, and, reputedly, 70% of all developers develop
in Windows. So whilst I eshew Windows, I recognize that programming
languages and development tools must be well supported on Windows, as
well as Mac OS X, Linux, UNIX, etc. to have any possibility of any
traction.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 05 2012
prev sibling parent reply "tim krimm" <twkrimm gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2012 at 14:43:47 UTC, mta`chrono wrote:

 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if 
 druntime will
 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least 
 require
 Windows XP.


I agree with removing the windows 2000 requirement from the run 
time library.

What about the DMD compiler itself?
Does DMD have a Windows XP+ requirement as well?
I would like to request that DMD itself not depend on XP.
But only if does not require a lot of work.

BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.

I have several old legal licensed copies.
I can fairly easily install and uninstall windows 2000.
I do not have to deal with Microsoft's registration headaches.
Believe it or not I had a customer that required windows 98 
support last year.

Embarcadero (formerly Borland) C++ Builder still supports these 
older systems.
Jun 05 2012
next sibling parent "tim krimm" <twkrimm gmail.com> writes:
OOPS

Ment to say
  Windows 2000 is handy for older machines and "bare bone" 
machines.


 Believe it or not I had a customer that required windows 98 
 support last year.


I guess if I am a dinosaur than my win 98 customer must have been 
a pre-dinosaur.
Jun 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 04:09:12 tim krimm wrote:

 On Tuesday, 5 June 2012 at 14:43:47 UTC, mta`chrono wrote:

 Drop support since even Microsoft dropped support. Even if
 druntime will
 support Windows 2000, all my the programs I code will at least
 require
 Windows XP.


 
 I agree with removing the windows 2000 requirement from the run
 time library.
 
 What about the DMD compiler itself?
 Does DMD have a Windows XP+ requirement as well?
 I would like to request that DMD itself not depend on XP.
 But only if does not require a lot of work.
 
 BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
 Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
 It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
 Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.
 
 I have several old legal licensed copies.
 I can fairly easily install and uninstall windows 2000.
 I do not have to deal with Microsoft's registration headaches.
 Believe it or not I had a customer that required windows 98
 support last year.
 
 Embarcadero (formerly Borland) C++ Builder still supports these
 older systems.


dmd should run on older machines - though I would be very concerned about 
running out of memory if much in the way of templates or CTFE is used. It's 
the libraries that have issues. Supporting older OSes means disallowing newer 
OS function calls, which can be quite problematic. For instance, some of what 
std.datetime does would be easier if we could require Vista or newer, since 
Microsoft added some time-related stuff in Vista. As it is, it requires a 
function which is only in XP or newer (which is really weird considering that 
the function which does the opposite conversion is on Win2K).

We obviously can't require that users have anything newer than XP, because XP 
is still used far too much for that, but in general, the sooner that older 
OSes are unsupported, the better off libraries which use system calls are. 
Regardless, dmd should run on older machines as long as they perform well 
enough to compile what you're trying to compile. dmd doesn't require any of 
the newer system calls.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05 2012
parent reply "tim krimm" <twkrimm gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 03:07:36 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

What causes the "RTLCaptureContext could not be located" error 
for instance?

You are saying it is object code in the runtime library that is 
linked in and not the object code generated by DMD for my D code.
So I can create a stub "run time" like in the XOMB OS and still 
run D programs.

The other reason I still use 2000 is:
I hate windows vista and windows 7 with a passion
but I can no longer get XP.
Unless I buy a refurbished PC with XP
that is coming off of lease.

I tolerate windows 7 only because I have too.
Windows 8 is going to be even worse.
I also hate paying the "Microsoft tax" and supporting the "evil 
empire".

Hopefully I will be able to convince future customers that Linux 
is better.
Jun 05 2012
parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 05:31:51 tim krimm wrote:

 On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 03:07:36 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 
 What causes the "RTLCaptureContext could not be located" error
 for instance?


I don't know anything about that. My first guess would be that it's related to 
druntime, but I don't know. As I understand it, dmd itself should work on 
Win2K, but it would be very easy for there to be an issue with the libraries 
which would prevent them from running, and it may be that there's a bug in dmd 
which prevents it from working properly in Win2K.


 You are saying it is object code in the runtime library that is
 linked in and not the object code generated by DMD for my D code.
 So I can create a stub "run time" like in the XOMB OS and still
 run D programs.


druntime may or may not work. Parts of Phobos _won't_ work (at minimum 
std.datetime and anything that relies on the portions of it that don't work). 
Creating your own runtime would work as long as you create all of the pieces 
that are needed (I wouldn't really advise trying though - it's not something 
that sounds like it would be much fun).


 The other reason I still use 2000 is:
 I hate windows vista and windows 7 with a passion
 but I can no longer get XP.
 Unless I buy a refurbished PC with XP
 that is coming off of lease.
 
 I tolerate windows 7 only because I have too.
 Windows 8 is going to be even worse.
 I also hate paying the "Microsoft tax" and supporting the "evil
 empire".
 
 Hopefully I will be able to convince future customers that Linux
 is better.


I'm primarily a Linux user myself, but unfortunately, since we want D to be 
properly cross-platform (and since a lot of people _do_ use and like Windows), 
we need to support it. The question is how old a version that we'll support, 
and the fewer older versions that we support, the easier that it is for us.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05 2012
prev sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 06.06.2012 6:09, tim krimm wrote:


 BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
 Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
 It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
 Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.


Using outdated OS to connect to the internet is one of biggest mistakes 
ever. For instance doesn't W2k happen to have this so convenient for 
malware IE6 ? ;) + There are various security breaches that nobody will 
fix ASAP anymore.


 I have several old legal licensed copies.
 I can fairly easily install and uninstall windows 2000.
 I do not have to deal with Microsoft's registration headaches.
 Believe it or not I had a customer that required windows 98 support last
 year.


What can I say try updating it at least to XP that still enjoys security 
fixes(?)

 Embarcadero (formerly Borland) C++ Builder still supports these older
 systems.



-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 05 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
"Dmitry Olshansky" <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jqmsv9$2ob2$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 06.06.2012 6:09, tim krimm wrote:


 BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
 Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
 It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
 Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.


 Using outdated OS to connect to the internet is one of biggest mistakes 
 ever. For instance doesn't W2k happen to have this so convenient for 
 malware IE6 ? ;) + There are various security breaches that nobody will 
 fix ASAP anymore.


Who's going to bother making exploits that'll only affect the few Win2K 
boxes out there? ;)
Jun 06 2012
next sibling parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 06.06.2012 13:22, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Dmitry Olshansky"<dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:jqmsv9$2ob2$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 06.06.2012 6:09, tim krimm wrote:


 BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
 Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
 It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
 Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.


 Using outdated OS to connect to the internet is one of biggest mistakes
 ever. For instance doesn't W2k happen to have this so convenient for
 malware IE6 ? ;) + There are various security breaches that nobody will
 fix ASAP anymore.


 Who's going to bother making exploits that'll only affect the few Win2K
 boxes out there? ;)


Why not if they just work? Common, it's the same kernel, just one major 
revision behind.

DOS on the other hand is far more safe in this regard :) I'd say FreeDOS 
is a superior alternative for Win2k dinosaurs.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jun 06 2012
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-06-06 11:22, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Who's going to bother making exploits that'll only affect the few Win2K
 boxes out there? ;)


Not new ones. But there's already a lot of them out there, I assume.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jun 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 05/06/2012 08:43, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
<snip>

 2. [A bit improve and] Merge this pull and officially announce that Windows
2000 is
 partially supported.


<snip>

Best course of action IMO.  After all, it's only a few blocks of code in two
files.  I 
can't see what the fuss over folding it in is about.

Stewart.
Jun 05 2012
prev sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:43:34 Denis Shelomovskij wrote:

 it's time to make a decision. Original comment:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212#issuecomment-582
 7106
 
 So what we will do with Windows 2000? Personally I don't like this pull
 request (druntime pull 212). It makes not-very-good-looking druntime
 uglier. I'd like voting about this to be done. Something like:
 
 1. Officially announce that minimum supported Windows version is 5.1
 (aka XP) since v2.053
    1. Add link like "Email  denis-sh to get D stuff with partial support
 for Windows 2000".
    2. Just call all Windows 2000 users dinosaurs.
 
 2. [A bit improve and] Merge this pull and officially announce that
 Windows 2000 is partially supported.
 
 3. Maniacally add full Windows 2000 support.
 
 4. Leave Issue 6024 opened forever.
 
 
 
 And from my next comment
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212#issuecomment-582
 7146: Oh, it's few days more than a year Windows 2000 is silently
 unsupported!
 
 Links:
 * http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024


Personally, I like the tact of saying that we'll support whatever versions of 
Windows that Microsoft does (which would mean no support for Win2K), but if 
adding some Win2K-specific stuff to fix some Win2K specific issues doesn't cost
us 
much, then it's fine with me. The problem is when there's a lot of it and/or 
it's disruptive. Some of the Win9x support definitely complicated stuff, and 
removing it was a definite step in the right direction IMHO. Win2K's situation 
is not quite the same however, so fixing some of the issues with it isn't 
necessarily a problem.

Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with the tact of 
saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that Microsoft 
supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions will work, and 
anything that doesn't, oh well.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05 2012
parent reply "Tim Krimm" <twkrimm gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:


 Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with 
 the tact of
 saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that 
 Microsoft
 supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions 
 will work, and
 anything that doesn't, oh well.

 - Jonathan M Davis


I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the run 
time.
So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.

I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work, 
but that is OK.

1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of 
DMD,
not the libraries.

2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.

Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the 
DMD compiler?
Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.
Jun 06 2012
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 15:11:28 Tim Krimm wrote:

 On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with
 the tact of
 saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that
 Microsoft
 supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions
 will work, and
 anything that doesn't, oh well.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the run
 time.
 So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.
 
 I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work,
 but that is OK.
 
 1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of
 DMD,
 not the libraries.
 
 2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
 When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.
 
 Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the
 DMD compiler?
 Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
 I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.


Given how much Walter likes stuff to run on pretty much any machine ever and 
dislikes breaking backwards compatibility (he's probably the main reason that 
we had any Win9x support in druntime and Phobos at all), I'd expect that he 
wouldn't purposefully doing anything to break compatability with Win2K - 
especially since the compiler isn't the sort of program which is likely to 
need the newer system calls. So, if dmd doesn't work on Win2K, I very much 
doubt that he did that on purpose, but given how integral druntime is to 
running a D program, I would generally have guessed that any Win2K issues were 
there rather than in dmd itself, but I suppose that that depends on whatever's 
failing. If dmd's not working for you, you can always create a bug report, and 
Walter may take care of it. But I really don't know of anything in the 
compiler which would require a newer OS.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jun 06 2012
parent reply "Tim Krimm" <twkrimm gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 15:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 15:11:28 Tim Krimm wrote:

 On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:

 Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with
 the tact of
 saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that
 Microsoft
 supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions
 will work, and
 anything that doesn't, oh well.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the 
 run
 time.
 So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.
 
 I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work,
 but that is OK.
 
 1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of
 DMD,
 not the libraries.
 
 2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
 When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.
 
 Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the
 DMD compiler?
 Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
 I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.


 Given how much Walter likes stuff to run on pretty much any 
 machine ever and
 dislikes breaking backwards compatibility (he's probably the 
 main reason that
 we had any Win9x support in druntime and Phobos at all), I'd 
 expect that he
 wouldn't purposefully doing anything to break compatability 
 with Win2K -
 especially since the compiler isn't the sort of program which 
 is likely to
 need the newer system calls. So, if dmd doesn't work on Win2K, 
 I very much
 doubt that he did that on purpose, but given how integral 
 druntime is to
 running a D program, I would generally have guessed that any 
 Win2K issues were
 there rather than in dmd itself, but I suppose that that 
 depends on whatever's
 failing. If dmd's not working for you, you can always create a 
 bug report, and
 Walter may take care of it. But I really don't know of anything 
 in the
 compiler which would require a newer OS.

 - Jonathan M Davis


DMD runs, but the programs generated no longer worked.
I think it was the run time and/or phobos library, and I am OK 
with that.
I just wanted to make sure that DMD was not also creating 
dependencies on XP+.

I am still a novice at D, so sometimes my questions or concerns 
may sound
"a little stupid at times"

Right now my interests are slanted towards the embedded world, in 
which case the run time and phobo's libraries etc. with have to 
be minimized any way.


Thanks for the help and information.
Jun 06 2012
parent reply Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> writes:
06.06.2012 21:23, Tim Krimm написал:

 DMD runs, but the programs generated no longer worked.
 I think it was the run time and/or phobos library, and I am OK with that.
 I just wanted to make sure that DMD was not also creating dependencies
 on XP+.


All information here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212



-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
Jun 06 2012
parent "Tim Krimm" <twkrimm gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 17:31:11 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij 
wrote:

 06.06.2012 21:23, Tim Krimm написал:

 DMD runs, but the programs generated no longer worked.
 I think it was the run time and/or phobos library, and I am OK 
 with that.
 I just wanted to make sure that DMD was not also creating 
 dependencies
 on XP+.


 All information here:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212


OK, go for it.
Jun 06 2012