@
takeos, thanks for that information. I was just trying to understand these various strategies to restoring backwards compatibility to apps that have no valid reason for failing to execute under Win9x. Both you and
steelbytes are clearly on the good guys team, standing against these unnecessary winds of change.
takeos, on Aug 26 2008, 05:40 AM, said:
Would something like $29.95 (individual developer license) be too much in your opinion? Some corporate developers might not even take it seriously at that price, while for others anything more than free would be too expensive. I exchanged ideas about the possible pricing. A small price would still give customers technical support and updates, i.e. if new functions emerge, they would likely be added to the library, etc.
Price sounds reasonable to me and I wish you much success. Speaking only for myself, I have yet to get Visual Studio 2008 but have almost everything prior, and will likely not use anything beyond VS6 personally because of all the time spent tweaking the libraries, options, editors and tools. Should that change I will no doubt grab your add-in.
takeos, on Aug 26 2008, 05:40 AM, said:
I doubt that Microsoft would be interested (as a customer), because they have demonstrated that they do not care about legacy compatibility. To the contrary, it seemed to me that they introduced or at least supported incompatibility on purpose. Do you remember how Visual Studio 2005 became incompatible with Windows 95? At the time it did not really break much. It would not have taken more than a few hours of work for Microsoft to retain compatibility by just not using certain functions. Lots of programmers had proposed solutions, patches, etc. I proposed one to Microsoft myself after I filed a bug report (I thought it was a bug!), they filed the "bug" as something like "by design" and closed the case!
Fully agree. This is certifiable planned obsolescence. I hope you are a MSDN member and figure out a way to publicize within the community. I find that the coders there, even Microsoft employees have much more sense than the suits who are making these stupid decisions.
I also hope that you can get Mark at System Internals to at least consider trying it. We can certainly survive on Win9x with older versions of AutoRuns (the startup areas are well-known), but Process Explorer is a definite loss.
IMHO, he should compile that one for both platforms. It might help if other interested Win9x users would
Contact Mark Russinovich with their suggestions.
Oh, you may want to look at a very important sticky thread here
Last Versions of Software for Windows 98SE, + Current Software Still Supported. You might view this is as a potential goldmine of clients, well at least those that use Visual Studio. Maybe even the
FireFox problem might be of interest to you.
To avoid hijacking this thread further, I'll eventually start a new one here that completely inventories the various System Internal utilities that still work in Win9x and those that have been recently euthanized by Visual Studio 2008. That would be a good place to chronicle any successes with
steelbytes patcher against the compiled files.
Frontpage
Forums
Tutorials
Members
Calendar
Subscription
Donate
Links
Contact 
Help
Back to top
Posted 04 September 2008 - 08:25 AM
Then forget for instructions which i gave above, here are new rapidshare links: 
