From: MikeD on

"Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote in message
> | 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 provide
> information about the minimum supported system?
> If a function was introduced with XP then obviously
> it should say so.

As Karl said, it comes down to what Microsoft supports now. They don't
officially support Win95, Win98, WinME, and WinNT anymore. So, they don't
list those OSes in their "current" documentation. Now whether you or I or
anyone besides MS agrees with this...well, we don't matter. <g> I'm not
saying I agree 100% with them not listing unsupported OSes if the function
is implemented in that OS. I suppose they could because whether the OS is
supported or not, people DO still use them and so some developers may find
they need to write software that will run under them. But I CAN see MS's
point of view too. And sure, much of that is just because MS doesn't WANT
software written to run on unsupported OSes. That's where I do disagree with
them because that shouldn't be their choice. If people want to run Win95
knowing it's not supported and they can't get help, that's THEIR choice. And
it's the developer's choice as to whether to support any given OS.

> 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.

No, that's not really the case. That might be how you see it and maybe
others too. The simple fact is that Win95 et. al. are not supported by MS so
they don't mention them in the docs. For all intents and purposes, if
you've got MSDN Library October 2001 installed, you've GOT the most current
documentation for unsupported OSes (well, Oct 2001 might be missing *some*
newer Win98/ME/NT4 documentation I suppose since I think those OSes were
supported for a little while after Oct 2001).

> I really don't understand why you'd defend them
> on that.

I'm not exactly defending them. I'm just saying their documentation is
re-written to reflect when an OS is no longer supported by not listing that
OS anymore...and I can understand why they do that. Think about it. Let's
just say you're using an app (ANY app) that is 10 years old but you've lost
the printed documentation for it (and also let's just say that its Help
doesn't quite cut it; I've used apps where the printed documentation is
leaps and bounds better than the app's Help). So you download the latest PDF
of the documentation from their web site only to discover half of the
documentation is "wrong" for the 10 year old version of the software you're
using. Really, you don't even need to apply this just to software. It's
applicable to your refrigerator, stove, furnace, AC, car, or pretty much
anything. You think if you call the maker of that refrigerator and say "hey,
this new manual I just downloaded says the 'fridge has this feature, but
mine doesn't" that they're going to do anything about it? The only thing
they might be able to do is send you the manual for your old 'fridge (even
that's doubtful if it's not already downloadable). What they're going to
tell you is buy a new 'fridge if you want that feature. And that's exactly
what MS is doing.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Auto Refreshing in vb6.0
Next: Decompose lParam