Re: [openMSX-devel] Re: Crash update

[Reikan <re...@us...>]

> (Personally I don't give a fook about WIn98 support, but OK, if 30% of 
> our users has it, I would find it painful to disappoint them... OTOH: 
> let's hope they upgrade to a more modern OS! :)

I'm using Win98SE, Win2k, WinXP. 98SE/2k on desktop machine, XP on note(laptop).
I don't like normal XP because its "activation".
(My XP machine is pre-installed and no need to activate.)
In Japan, most of proprietary softwares are published as "for 98(SE)/ME/2k/XP".
Exceptions would be huge software vendors (like M$, Adobe, ...) 
because they can say "huh? 98? too old, buy XP!".
Small software vendors cannot ignore users who (cannot | don't want to) 
upgrade to XP because not-newest(or not-newer) environment users exist 
enough to force small vendors to support.
# sometimes, device drivers require 98SE or higher becauseof WDM needness.

Beaware environment of developers tend for highend side.
And same tendency for active(write on MLs, forums and son) users.
Don't forget silent users they might not computer mania.
(Although users of openMSX might be a mania in the past, but not sure now.)
Such casual users' environment would be more middle or low spec.

When I was working as a win32 porter still, a Win95 user came to IRC 
and reported a problem related to Win95(actually SHELL32.DLL version issue).
Certainly, I made a workaround for him(her?) with pleasure.
Because I prefer care-old as much as possible than force-new in thinkingless.
Remenber that we like MSX and are making MSX emulator still now!
Most of people in the world will say 
"huh? MSX? too old, throw away, buy and use x86-64, make and use modern env!
 don't waste time and power in making/using such useless emulator!".

BTW, sometimes Win9x is suitable for application debug than NT-family.
NT-family hide application fault vaguely.
9x is relatively without such peculiarity. (ya, just app crash soon)

--
  Reikan