On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Chris Sutcliffe <ir0nh34d@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 January 2012 14:31, Earnie Boyd <earnie@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Earnie Boyd <earnie@users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> This bug brings up a point that I've been wanting to ask here for a while.
>>  Since WINVER=0x0400 has waned to the point of near non-existence should we
>> not begin to default to 0x0500?  Those wanting to support older versions can
>> modify it just like those wanting to support newer versions.
>
> Any comment?

Makes sense to me.  I don't believe Microsoft is even support Win2K
any more, are they (i.e. we could bump it to 0x0501)?

0x0501 is XP so I'm fine with that.

--
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd