GetAttr under Vista and Win 7
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Auto Refreshing in vb6.0
Next: Decompose lParam
From: Karl E. Peterson on 29 Apr 2010 15:23 MikeD wrote: > "Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote... >> For those of us who want to continue supporting >> Win9x (and Win2000 after this June) this is not a >> small issue. It means that current docs cannot be >> trusted and must be compared against older versions. > > Current documentation does not apply to Win9x, NT4, so yes, you must rely on > the older documentation. > > Wouldn't it be worse to see in the docs details about new functionality only > to then discover Win9x doesn't have that new functionality? Huh? Of course not. There's no excuse for this change. It's a simple matter to state clearly the first time the functionality was supported. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Mayayana on 29 Apr 2010 18:54 | Current documentation does not apply to Win9x, NT4, so yes, you must rely on the older documentation. | | Wouldn't it be worse to see in the docs details about new functionality only to then discover Win9x doesn't have that new | functionality? | You lost me there. Isn't that what the minimum support requirements listing is for....to provide information about the minimum supported system? If a function was introduced with XP then obviously it should say so. This is Win32 API documentation, which starts with Win95. It's not "current documentation". It's old documentation that's been deliberately edited and falsified. I really don't understand why you'd defend them on that. Come June the pages will probably say that XP SP3 is required. That's a lie, plain and simple. It's not hard to imagine confused new people avoiding a function dating to Win95 because they don't know whether all of their XP customers have SP3.
From: Karl E. Peterson on 29 Apr 2010 19:58 Mayayana wrote: >> Current documentation does not apply to Win9x, NT4, so yes, you must rely >> on the older documentation. >> >> Wouldn't it be worse to see in the docs details about new functionality >> only to then discover Win9x doesn't have that new functionality? >> > > You lost me there. Isn't that what the minimum > support requirements listing is for....to provide > information about the minimum supported system? > If a function was introduced with XP then obviously > it should say so. Well, see, the emphasis is on "supported" now. As in, what's the minimum system Microsoft will support this call on. It's no longer which is the minimum system the call works on, or *was* supported on at one time. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Helmut Meukel on 30 Apr 2010 04:05 "Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:OCvgv6%235KHA.6052(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > This is Win32 API documentation, which starts > with Win95. It's not "current documentation". It's > old documentation that's been deliberately edited > and falsified. > Just for the records: Win32 API starts with NT3.1 not Win95, but look into older docs they edited it out there, too. Some - not all - 32-bit API functions were also available in 16-bit Windows through the Win32s subsystem you could install on a 16-bit Windows. All gone and no longer mentioned. Helmut.
From: Karl E. Peterson on 30 Apr 2010 11:33
Mayayana wrote: >> Current documentation does not apply to Win9x, NT4, so yes, you must rely >> on the older documentation. >> >> Wouldn't it be worse to see in the docs details about new functionality >> only to then discover Win9x doesn't have that new functionality? >> > > You lost me there. Isn't that what the minimum > support requirements listing is for....to provide > information about the minimum supported system? > If a function was introduced with XP then obviously > it should say so. Well, see, the emphasis is on "supported" now. As in, what's the minimum system Microsoft will support this call on. It's no longer which is the minimum system the call works on, or *was* supported on at one time. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org |