From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-01-05 12:44:02
|
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Chris Sutcliffe <ir0...@gm...> wrote: > On 4 January 2012 14:31, Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Earnie Boyd < > ea...@us...> > > 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 |