2

My question is related to this one: "Does Visual Studio 2008 support windows 98?"

The accepted answer to that question is "NO", and to support Windows 9x you will need to continue using Visual Studio 2005. I prefer to believe anything is possible (for a price), and I'm trying to find a solution that would let us have our cake and eat it too.

We've found two possible solutions:

  1. Legacy Extender ( http://www.legacyextender.com/ )
  2. ExeVersion ( http://www.steelbytes.com/?mid=47 )

Has anyone gone down this road? Any suggestions, caveats, pitfalls, etc??? Currently I'm just doing research, but we will probably try implementing something within the next month.

Thanks!

EDIT:
Yeah, it's C/C++ and Win32 API. We want to be able to upgrade our dev environment without having to fork the source to support legacy clients, unfortunately programs compiled in VS 2008 are binary incompatible with Win9x.

mirh
  • 514
  • 8
  • 14
Anthony F
  • 6,096
  • 4
  • 31
  • 32
  • People still use Windows 98? :) – Adam Robinson Apr 06 '09 at 17:41
  • Unfortunately, some of us still have to support that beast... :) Or should I call it zombie, persistent one at that. No matter what you try, it just won't die already. – Mihai Limbășan Apr 06 '09 at 17:43
  • If you're tied to a piece of legacy hardware without updated drivers, you bet. That's probably just one of many reasons. – Mark Ransom Apr 06 '09 at 17:44
  • If you stop enabling it, then it will die. If we all stop producing software for it, then those still using it will have to upgrade or buy new systems. – John Saunders Apr 06 '09 at 17:54
  • Windows98 isn't even supported by Microsoft any more, to the point that new security vulnerabilities remain unpatched. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx – Joel Coehoorn Apr 06 '09 at 18:14
  • It's a business decision, John. Moving away from a locked-in platform is sometimes much costlier than supporting it. As to the security vulnerabilities - I don't think that argument bears any relevance anymore. 98 is insecure by design and its usage reflects that by now (e.g. data acquisition etc.) – Mihai Limbășan Apr 06 '09 at 18:42
  • I agree it's a business decision. Vendors who sell software that supports Windows 98 should stop doing so. That will help people make the correct business decision. I'm more than half serious about this. Do the decision makers understand the technology difference? I bet not. – John Saunders Apr 07 '09 at 00:27
  • Oh, they do. Concrete example from my field of work (security and alarm system integration): industrial ISA bus (!) data acquisition board ($8000+). Custom integrated software components from 3rd party vendors who no longer sell or support it ($50000+). That would quadruple would it be reimplemented – Mihai Limbășan Apr 07 '09 at 05:14

1 Answers1

0

If you can get the .NET framework to run on Windows 98, which i think .NET 1.0 might, you can always run apps on it!

Anirudh Goel
  • 4,571
  • 19
  • 79
  • 109
  • .NET 2.0 does work on Windows 98 (and on WINE, incidentally) - I tried it. Too bad VS isn't written in .NET - it's all native for some reason. (Ahem, Windows monopoly, ahem :D) – Lucas Jones Apr 10 '09 at 10:11
  • @person-b how about .NET 1.0? – Anirudh Goel Apr 13 '09 at 05:05
  • 1
    Even if .NET weren't involved it would make no difference - Tony doesn't care about .NET, all he needs is C/C++ and the Win32 API. The first hint was the link to LegacyExtender... :) – Mihai Limbășan Apr 14 '09 at 21:03