EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

[Dave Korn]

On 07 February 2007 10:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Jul 24 18:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
> the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.
> 
> - The code size of the DLL would shrink by a good amount.
> 
> - The autoloading of functions could be reduced to the functions not
>   available on all NT versions.  This would reduce the autoload overhead
>   by about 90%.
> 
> - The code complexity would be reduced enormously by stripping off at
>   least 50% of the `if (wincap.foo ()) tests.  This would also have
>   some positive effects on the performance.
> 
> - Long 32K pathname support doesn't exist in 9x.  So, when we switch
>   over to using the unicode functions for pathnames, we would have a
>   lot of avoidable hassle to keep 9x running at all.
> 
> You're all convinced, right?

  Hell yeah!  Let's have a mass-delete-fest!

  We should tag the repository beforehand, just in case some retro-enthusiasts
feel like keeping 1.5.x alive on a branch and keeping it hobbling along on '9x
for a while longer.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....