Do we need Win95/98/Me support?

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Sun Jan 22 21:46:20 PST 2012


"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.722.1327291162.16222.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>I find it kind of funny that someone would use a *new* language to
> support an *ancient* platform. If someone is still hacking with win9x
> support I bet their dev environment is -- VC6.

While I agree 9x isn't worth supporting, calling it "ancient" is pure 
hyperbole. CP/M is ancient. ProDOS is arguably ancient. Hell, Win2 could 
even be called ancient. Win9x is just simply old/outdated. Christ, it 
includes an OS (WinMe) that's arguably *ONE* version prior to a version 
that's still heavily used - XP. (Hell, even Win98 was the version that 
*most* people used immediately prior to the still-heavily-used XP).

I know I'm going all off on something that really is nitpicky, but misuse of 
grandiose words like "ancient", "epic", etc., to refer to fairly trivial 
matters is a bit of a pet peeve...

(Hell, using "ancient" to refer to "computers more than 5-10 years old" is 
itself rather..."ancient".)




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list