Outdated resources FAQ.

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3720

When TPFC first took off back in 2006 Vista/Longhorn was only in its development stage, but now we're 5 years on, 2 operating systems down the line and 1 on the way. So I'm wondering is there any point to documenting whether an application requires a certain .dll file (dependency) when you consider that some of the .dll's listed in the FAQ/Resources section have been available for some time.

For example GDIPlus.dll has been part of Windows XP since its release in 2001 and according to the stats (see below) Windows 2000 appears to be on the way out (I know it say 0% but I'm sure there are users who have 2000.) So is there any reason or need to specify that an application depends on this dll? I don't know if this has been the case but someone might see this as a deterrent to download the application even though they're running Windows 7. As we all know not all users are interested in the inner workings of Windows, if it works then that's fine.

So perhaps it's time to update the website FAQ to reflect the changes within Windows? Comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Ref: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

JohnTHaller · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:31 am

I've been removing the GDIPLUS.DLL requirement from apps which no longer work on Windows 2000 and below. For others, you could say "Windows 2000 requires GDIPLUS.DLL". I believe Win9x should be dropped as hardly any apps support it and almost no one uses it.

Also, you shouldn't use w3schools' stats as they're only for their own site, making them useless in thinking about the overall web. Here's a better source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operati ... pcustomd=0

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:56 am

JohnTHaller wrote:

I've been removing the GDIPLUS.DLL requirement from apps which no longer work on Windows 2000 and below.

Thank you for that. I have noticed.

----

Also see this thread: http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9180

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3720

I remember that topic but simply forgot to link it in the original post. Thanks John, I didn't do much work finding a good site, but that link you provided looks a lot more thorough, though I just went with my gut feeling on this.

I suppose we will see the changes in the next couple of months.

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

How about making WinXP the baseline version (since it has 50+% of the market) and only documenting DLLs that do not come with the default install of WinXP? I think some DLLs such as MSVCR71.DLL and MSVCP71.DLL (not to mention later versions) don't come default with WinXP.

m^(2) · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:09 pm

Yes, they don't. The slightly older ms*70.dll don't either.
Though I'm not so sure that dropping older OSes is a good move. It's certainly not *very* bad, but does keeping support for the 0.48% of Windows users that have something older than XP really hurt?

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3720

You can't please everyone, simple! If someone is using an older OS (not supported by Microsoft may I add) & a user of TPFC then I would love to hear there reason as to why they are, I'm open to suggestion. But most of the 'active' members here I would say use XP+ and that's who we should be concentrating on not 0.48% that probably have never visited TPFC.

Quote:

How about making WinXP the baseline version.

Brilliant idea.

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:17 am

Andrew Lee wrote:

How about making WinXP the baseline version (since it has 50+% of the market)

Its market share is 38,5 % according to StatCounter.

But yes, I think XP is a good baseline version.

m^(2) wrote:

Though I'm not so sure that dropping older OSes is a good move. It's certainly not *very* bad, but does keeping support for the 0.48% of Windows users that have something older than XP really hurt?

I agree. I have mentioned it myself.

SYSTEM wrote:

The second stage is removing Windows 95, 98 and Me from the operating system list and, as a result, from the "System requirements" fields of all entries. Andrew is the only one who can do that.

I think it's not yet time to do the second stage, because the benefits would be very small (database entries would become a little bit shorter, and an user adding an entry would no longer need to find out if those OSes are supported).

m^(2) · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:50 am

guinness wrote:

You can't please everyone, simple! If someone is using an older OS (not supported by Microsoft may I add) & a user of TPFC then I would love to hear there reason as to why they are, I'm open to suggestion. But most of the 'active' members here I would say use XP+ and that's who we should be concentrating on not 0.48% that probably have never visited TPFC.

Quote:

How about making WinXP the baseline version.

Brilliant idea.

I'm not for concentrating on them. In fact I would be against it if that cost significant amount of time. But keeping what we have already is cheap. Extremely cheap. And for 1 in 200 - I'm sure it's worth it.
Is checking new additions for compatibility? I don't know, but I think it is too, basic checks are what, 1 minute per program?

JohnTHaller · **Posted:** Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:50 am

For Windows 2000 users, you could simply have a baseline set of dependencies that should be installed to get it to the same level as Windows XP. Basically, all the service packs, GDIPLUS, VC 7.0 libraries, etc. Then you won't need to break down which apps require them specifically or spell them out. That way, testing Win2K compatibility is easier, it won't take up any extra room in dependencies and it'll just work. Still listing Win9x OSes is pretty pointless at this point, though.

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3720

Perhaps it's time to revisit this thread again and the FAQ as I just had look and certain answers could be tweaked a little e.g. How do you test the programs to ensure they are portable? Could be expanded to include the likes of Sandboxie and/or System Explorer. As I don't have access to the FAQ I was wondering what is the best approach for editing it?

Midas · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:10 am

In a real world example of the long term relevance of outdated systems, I'd like to mention that with so many high power/resolution mobile devices around, particularly those able to run the DOSBox emulator (http://www.portablefreeware.com/launch.php?id=687), some tinkerers (I have no links at the moment) were able to install and run Windows 3.x on them, as well as some of its applications, thus expanding the scope and usability of such devices... :idea:

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

Quote:

As I don't have access to the FAQ I was wondering what is the best approach for editing it?

@guinness: Send me the text/HTML please.

Outdated resources FAQ.

Who is online