Win9x [in]compatible

small is beauty

Win9x [in]compatible

Postby small is beauty » Tue May 12, 2009 9:06 am

Thank for the software. :D
CintaNotes looks good, KISS - keep it small and simple ;)

But one thing is that it does not run in Win9x. :|
Programs that run in newer systems usually means eating up more resources and less efficient to me.
In particular when programs that wouldn't use transparent screen, monitor system in "real" time...,
what else couldn't win9x do but XP or Vista can? :cry:

(Even worse, if the same program can be compiled in MSVC6, it wont run in Win9x again if compiled in MSVC7 or CS, but it is the same program!) :oops:

So I put it in Usb and may use it only when i use WinXP computers.
But as normally I work in WinMe, chances are it will soon be forgot or replaced by other "simpler" program. :o
Last edited by Midas on Fri May 22, 2009 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Changed the text colurs so that humans can read the text ;-)
small is beauty

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby small is beauty » Tue May 12, 2009 9:19 am

Hi, it is me again.

I know the world is moving on, I use other systems too.

But I keep most of my work in older system. A runnable version in Win9x will ensure i can work around in XP and then come back to my "Mainframe" to continue my work.

Some other softwares do maintain a Win9x version, even if for some reasons they do not maintain backward compatibility in newer versions.

Thanks.
User avatar
CintaNotes Developer
Site Admin
Posts: 4711
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby CintaNotes Developer » Thu May 14, 2009 4:47 am

small is beauty wrote:Thank for the software. :D
CintaNotes looks good, KISS - keep it small and simple ;)

But one thing is that it does not run in Win9x. :|
Programs that run in newer systems usually means eating up more resources and less efficient to me.
In particular when programs that wouldn't use transparent screen, monitor system in "real" time...,
what else couldn't win9x do but XP or Vista can? :cry:

(Even worse, if the same program can be compiled in MSVC6, it wont run in Win9x again if compiled in MSVC7 or CS, but it is the same program!) :oops:

So I put it in Usb and may use it only when i use WinXP computers.
But as normally I work in WinMe, chances are it will soon be forgot or replaced by other "simpler" program. :o


Hello and thanks for your feedback.
Unfortunately the support of the Win9x/ME systems is not planned, as it will require a lot of effort with comparatively little benefit.

>what else couldn't win9x do but XP or Vista can?
The main reason that CintaNotes is targeted for W2K and above is their native support for Unicode.
Alex
Midas
Moderator
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:40 am
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby Midas » Thu May 14, 2009 11:13 am

CintaNotes Developer wrote:[...]

>what else couldn't win9x do but XP or Vista can?
The main reason that CintaNotes is targeted for W2K and above is their native support for Unicode.

I have seen Win9x unicode support achieved by inclusion of a 'unicows.dll' file -- I think the portable Piriform CCleaner does it... But hey, like I said, I'm no programmer. :roll:
:D Midas, your friendly nugget gobbler, with a message from our sponsors:

Ask questions the smart way -- see www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/
User avatar
CintaNotes Developer
Site Admin
Posts: 4711
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby CintaNotes Developer » Thu May 14, 2009 12:29 pm

Midas wrote:
CintaNotes Developer wrote:[...]

>what else couldn't win9x do but XP or Vista can?
The main reason that CintaNotes is targeted for W2K and above is their native support for Unicode.

I have seen Win9x unicode support achieved by inclusion of a 'unicows.dll' file -- I think the portable Piriform CCleaner does it... But hey, like I said, I'm no programmer. :roll:


Yes, Unicode support can be achieved, I didn't say that it couldn't. But since it would require extra effort, I decided to better implement more useful features.

After all, see the 2009 OS usage share here.
Windows 9x/ME share is about 0.5% and rapidly declining.
Alex
Midas
Moderator
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:40 am
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby Midas » Thu May 14, 2009 1:19 pm

Right. But I can't believe that Vista has 22.5%!!! :o

And people use more Windows 2000 (1.18%) than Linux (1.13%) on the desktop?

I loved Win2K, but surely desktop linuxes have since progressed much furter...
:D Midas, your friendly nugget gobbler, with a message from our sponsors:

Ask questions the smart way -- see www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/
User avatar
CintaNotes Developer
Site Admin
Posts: 4711
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby CintaNotes Developer » Thu May 14, 2009 2:35 pm

Midas wrote:Right. But I can't believe that Vista has 22.5%!!! :o


Well, I think it's no wonder: I myself still use XP and consider Vista to be too slow.
When I saw that the simple DrawText API function is 50x times slower on Vista I decided to skip it altogether.
(see e.g. here)

And people use more Windows 2000 (1.18%) than Linux (1.13%) on the desktop?
I loved Win2K, but surely desktop linuxes have since progressed much furter...

Well, there are verifiable sources specified there. And cintanotes.com visitor stats tend to confirm this:

Windows XP - 73.9%
Windows Vista - 15.4%
Windows 2008 - 2.5%
Windows 2003 - 1%
Windows 2000 - 1%
Windows 9x/ME - 0.3%
All Linux (Ubuntu being most popular) - 1%
Mac OS - 0.8%
Others/Unidentified - 3.4%
Alex
Midas
Moderator
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:40 am
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby Midas » Thu May 14, 2009 3:42 pm

CintaNotes Developer wrote:
Midas wrote:Right. But I can't believe that Vista has 22.5%!!! :o

Well, I think it's no wonder: I myself still use XP and consider Vista to be too slow.
When I saw that the simple DrawText API function is 50x times slower on Vista I decided to skip it altogether.
[...]
And people use more Windows 2000 (1.18%) than Linux (1.13%) on the desktop?
I loved Win2K, but surely desktop linuxes have since progressed much furter...

Well, there are verifiable sources specified there. And cintanotes.com visitor stats tend to confirm this:

Windows XP - 73.9%
Windows Vista - 15.4%
Windows 2008 - 2.5%
Windows 2003 - 1%
Windows 2000 - 1%
Windows 9x/ME - 0.3%
All Linux (Ubuntu being most popular) - 1%
Mac OS - 0.8%
Others/Unidentified - 3.4%

My comment on Vista is the same -- why would someone upgrade OS, when it represents an hardware downgrade on a full order of magnitude scale? For more bells & whistles? For that priceless moronic feeling you get while waiting for your computer to do your bidding, when it visibly has other priorities? For being denied basic access to functionality everybody else has? (DRM & encrypted video signal pop to my mind)

Thanks, but no thanks.

Oh, and I never doubted the sources, I was just amazed; thanks for sharing the local data.
:D Midas, your friendly nugget gobbler, with a message from our sponsors:

Ask questions the smart way -- see www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/
small is beauty

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby small is beauty » Thu May 21, 2009 4:08 am

I never thought I started a debate on window versions :lol:

100% agree to this, if I could I rather double it to 200% and I hope someone would redouble it :P :
why would someone upgrade OS, when it represents an hardware downgrade on a full order of magnitude scale? For more bells & whistles? For that priceless moronic feeling you get while waiting for your computer to do your bidding, when it visibly has other priorities? For being denied basic access to functionality everybody else has? (DRM & encrypted video signal pop to my mind)


My sister just bought a brand new vista a month ago, worked fine at start, but just one month later, her computer is running slower than my 7 years old 500 Mhz Celeron WinME. (I am proud of it too, as I never see blue screen in "My computer") :lol:

Right also, that 80% WinXP + W2K :ugeek: , but my office have the 20% left as WinME. :P (Quite contrary, I see blue screen more often in WinXP because of 80/20 sample size :lol:)

Right, unicode is part of the problem, 'unicows.dll' solved (95%) acceptable part of it, but not all... :ugeek: The main reason in Win9x compatibility is .net (> v2.0) compiler library and using window system call "query.dll" etc... :oops: Obviously, these are "human :twisted: factors", not technologically reasons :ugeek: .

Thank you anyway, Cinanotes is a good work. :ugeek: :P :D
Midas
Moderator
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:40 am
Contact:

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby Midas » Thu May 21, 2009 2:47 pm

small is beauty wrote:[...]

Right, unicode is part of the problem, 'unicows.dll' solved (95%) acceptable part of it, but not all... :ugeek: The main reason in Win9x compatibility is .net (> v2.0) compiler library and using window system call "query.dll" etc... :oops: Obviously, these are "human :twisted: factors", not technologically reasons :ugeek: .

[...]


Do you mean you got CintaNotes to work with Unicode by placing unicows.dll on your system? If so, please post a more detailed report as it could help other users. :?

Also, CintaNotes is not, to the best of my knowledge, a .Net application; what are you saying, that Win9x/ME doesn't have .Net 2.0? I'm curious. I have knowledge of some unofficial service packs for Win9x that you could maybe try if they address this issue. :geek:
:D Midas, your friendly nugget gobbler, with a message from our sponsors:

Ask questions the smart way -- see www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/
small is beauty

Re: Win9x compatible

Postby small is beauty » Fri May 22, 2009 9:44 am

Hi, thanks for the concern.

I am no expert and I have no knowledge in ways of modern programming. Just to share :
1) No, I couldn't make Cintanotes run on WinME.
2) Most "new" softwares which are not Win9x usually fail in a) unicode; b) dotnet 3.0 library and c) window (XP) system calls.
3) Yes, most "old" softwares which updates their version to catchup usually feel painful to provide WinNT compatible function for Win9x. Many of them then draw a clear line between XP version and 9x version. Only a minority of them maintain same functionality to both versions.

For 2a) usually the installer detects it and refuse to install until unicows.exe is download from Microsoft and installed. But even then, once for awhile, software like FileSync (ansi support only) copy files that are from winXP to WinME with filename "corrupted" and cannot be opened in WinME. That is ok to me, so I know I have to use another filename in WinXP so that it will not be complained later. That was what I refer to "solved (95%) acceptable". In fact it should be 99.9% because only a few unicodes in WinXP are not compatible to that (installed version) of WinME, and I would use simple a-z characters as filename if I want to be sure.

For 2b) installer that stops at .net 3.0 required, I would give up. WinME can only upgrade to 2.0 and I dont want to update it even if there is some work around. If I updates the whole Windows directory, it would be XP then, I dont see the need yet.

For 2c) window (XP) system calls. It usually just couldnt run and failed with error message like "linked to a missing export User32.dll:UpdateLayeredwindow" or "USER32.DLL:LockWorkStation". Most software that use transparent form would fail like that. I can't remember what was the message, I will tell you again when I have time to go to WinME machine to work. For some software, this is easily solved if they built up from win9x version. They just write a higher level function to paint the screen and return from function call immediately if Win9x is detected. Of course, if new developer that rely on other components, if may be painful to do from scratches up.

For Cintanotes at the moment, I do not think of any reason that is XP specific. But, right, you are right, WinME is dying and may not worth the effort to support it.

Finally, as a balance of my last sentence, many new implementation of POS systems in HongKong (right I am from HK) are winXP with DOS Box running 15 years ago software of dbase based program. If things are just working right, who bothers changing them?

Regards.
kranor
Moderator
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Win9x [in]compatible

Postby kranor » Fri May 22, 2009 11:41 am

Hi small is beauty
I think that it is the xp and vista api calls that causes CintaNotes to fail on 9x. CN (afaik) does not use .net ( and definitely not higher than .net 1 Because my work will not allow any higher versions). I am suprised to see that you do not get BSOD's on Me, as in my experience 95 invented it and Me created a whole new economy out of it :lol:
No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
User avatar
CintaNotes Developer
Site Admin
Posts: 4711
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Win9x [in]compatible

Postby CintaNotes Developer » Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:36 am

There's also one small psychological issue that I discovered:
- given two absolutely identical programs, with the only difference that one supports Win9x and other doesn't, many users with choose the one that runs only on newer OSes, as it will be perceived as more modern.

Given this interesting psychological twist, I hope you understand why I'm not eager to invest time in Win9x support and give the users the impression that CintaNotes has been around since the last century when in fact it is not ;)


Last bumped by Anonymous on Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:36 am.
Alex

Return to “CintaNotes Personal Notes Manager”