Makes sense to me. I don't believe Microsoft is even support Win2K
On 4 January 2012 14:31, Earnie Boyd <firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Earnie Boyd <email@example.com
>> 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?