Helgi,

/quote:
As a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MS discount anymore
support/updates to win98 sometime this year, thus making that OS even
more unsecure, so maybe like I pointed out above, is too much work to
support such legacy OS./

Supporting an OS is also depending on how many people are still using it, don't you think?
If I would even count how many times I still have to make full 800*600 support on my project
s, and still having complaints that people can't see the complete screen, and have to scroll
 to much... There are still people using 640*480... And, isn't that old? So, win98 support l
ooks useful to me...

And, greg, sorry, I don't have it :-)




Helgi Þormar wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Look at http://www.php.net/windows
> like that page says as of 4.3.0 windows 95 isn't supported, so I guess
> win98 is still supported ;) and for 4.2.0 windows 95 should work (which
> of course is the current version PEAR needs at least, or did you higher
> that number up in 1.4 ?)
> 
> Here's my personal opinion, be aware ;) I think we should give up on
> windows 95/98 and ME, because no healthy person uses that as a server
> (well development env is maybe a different story)
> 
> But what we should do to keep flexibility and compatibility is to follow
> what PHP does, and thus we should have support for win98, and even 95 if
> we'll have the required PHP version still at 4.2.0
> 
> But then we come down to maintenance cost/time (time is money so it's
> all the same) and if removing the win98 support in PEAR 1.4.0 makes
> things more simpler then that's probably the best road to go.
> 
> As a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MS discount anymore
> support/updates to win98 sometime this year, thus making that OS even
> more unsecure, so maybe like I pointed out above, is too much work to
> support such legacy OS.
> 
> Regards
> Helgi
> 
> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 04:51, Greg Beaver wrote:
>   
> 
> >As I understand it, PHP no longer actively supports windows 98 (correct 
> >me if I'm wrong).  I wonder if we can go the same route in PEAR safely? 
> >  If so, I can simplify the pear.bat file, making go-pear completely 
> >unnecessary for a default installation using the techniques described in 
> >my email to pear-dev regarding testing a batch file in windows 98.
> >
> >This would affect PEAR 1.4.0 and newer
> >
> >Greg
> >    
> >
> 
>   
>