XnView Software

Do you use one of this OS?

I still have an older PC running on Windows 2000, because some of my graphics programs (Macromedia Fireworks v4.0.2 etc.) don't like XP SP3 and Seven.

... Windows 95/98/NT/2000 ... yes ... sometimes, for fun, on virtual machines ... Windows 3.11 too .

But do you always XnView on it?

If i use VS 2008-2012, the build can't be used on 95/98/NT/2000, and VC 6 is very old now

... No ... So let's go to VS 2008-2012, and we will see the very few users of 95/98/NT/2000 soon into the xnview forum

xnview wrote:But do you always XnView on it?

If i use VS 2008-2012, the build can't be used on 95/98/NT/2000, and VC 6 is very old now

Yes, I agree. It's time to move on
Users will always be able to rely on XnView ≤ v2.04 for older OSs.

xnview wrote:Do you use one of this OS?

YES

xnview wrote:VC 6 is very old now

YES

If i use VS 2008-2012, the build can't be used on 9

Probably true ... but what's the point of VS >= 2008 ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the newer VS's / MSVC's cause nothing except trouble (bloat, dependencies of strange DLL's, ...). What about WATCOM (NC for DOS and OS\2 already compiled with it) ?

xnview wrote:Do you use one of this OS?

Yes, W2K on a really old box, in a Virtual PC, and on a wannabe-portable USB stick. Works for me (up to 2.04). If you drop W2K for a better or at least newer compiler please add a note in whatsnew.txt. JFTR, zip32.dll in AddOn vintage 1999 might be not state of the art, 7z.dll 2006 is also old...

While I have some old OSes, I don't use xnview on them.

I think the question should be- "do you use one of these OS versions and is it your main image processing PC"?

Just because people may still use it on old systems, it could well be used with a specific purpose and any new features might not be needed/used anyway.

Which brings another question, Pierre - is it your intention to keep adding new features to xnview classic, even after MP is released? If it will be mainly bug-fixes then I suspect they will be mainly related to new OS versions and probably easier to fix with newer compilers and libraries. (but I don't know from experience, so I might be talking rubbish)

I would vote that you go with what makes your task easier.

CameronD wrote:I would vote that you go with what makes your task easier.

With those Microsoft folks you have to be careful, I think they dropped support for XP in VS 2012, and XP will be around for another decade. If xnview classic drops W2K I'm tempted to switch to MP on my new 64bits box, and keep the various classic 32bits versions as is. Just in case, there were arguably important security fixes up to xnview 2.04 this year, it would be odd if new security fixes only work for "new" XP or better platforms.

omniplex wrote:... I think they dropped support for XP in VS 2012,

I didn't realise that

and XP will be around for another decade....

Yes, I would not like to see support for XP dropped yet - even MS support is still hanging on for security fixes.
I am sure there are plenty of people still using XP as a primary desktop.

I use Windows ME as my main OS, not in the question but it's pretty much the same as Windows 98.

I am using KernelEx to run in it many programs that normally run only on XP. Hopefully (most probably) this will be enough to run newer versions of XnView built with VS 2008-10-12.

And before anybody suggests I should move on etc... well, just don't...

XP support is back in VS 2013:
http://www.visualstudio.com/products/vi ... ibility-vs