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 Win9x is just simply old/outdated.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