Windows 7/64
in [Visual Objects]
|
Prev: Scoping
Next: Mulitselect in bBrowser
From: Geoff Schaller on 20 Dec 2009 16:17 The shame is that some folks are determined not to upgrade their applications out of what seems spite for themselves. I don't understand that. In the 80's and early 90's we grasped at everything new that came along. We all learned and used multiple languages, assessing each one for suitability. I migrated all my DOS apps out to Windows in the late 90's. It seemed reasonable. Clients wanted and needed mice, good graphics and fast, modern database systems. Windows gave you that - DOS didn't. Pure and simple. Dot net now gives you more so this is where all reasonable VO folk will now go. So what happened to some of these clipper heads? Some folks seemed to just stagnate with the 90's. It isn't reasonable and it is thoroughly disingenuous to the end user. Geoff "dlzc" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:53a9fc28-ce2b-4420-99d8-1d2d5d2b5081(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com: > Dear Geoff Schaller: > > On Dec 19, 8:05 pm, "Geoff Schaller" > <geo...(a)softxwareobjectives.com.au> wrote: > > > > > That is not true. Microsoft quite clearly say > > they support DOS apps through XP Mode. It's on > > their website. > > > Let's add a link to that: > http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/GettingReadyforWindows7/thread/b8c2070b-b9df-475f-892c-7f2d38162557 > > Sorry about the disinformation. > > > > What they do say (which is correct) is that > > they do not support running 16 bit apps natively > > on their 64 bit processors. > > > > I find that entirely reasonable and desirable. > > > With multiple processor systems, with "half" of the installed products > not able to use XP mode (only "Pro" and up), and the "Home" folks that > are most likely to have older code that they cannot afford to update, > I don't share your opinion. Like that amounts to a hill of beans... I > am not the author of anything important. > > David A. Smith
From: a.nederpelt on 25 Dec 2009 05:48 The only problem is that my apps used to use ECONNECT for clipper. It it to access Exact for Dos (dutch accounting system). So when the client migrated to Windows version (16bits and btrieve) with no database differences it was simple to replace ECONNECT with BTRIEVE access. So i did that. Now the customer is still using my dos-app. When they migrate to the newest (o well 9 years old already) Exact Globe they need to migrate my app to .NET. So i am not stuck in the 90's, i guess my customer is..... and i support it. Alwin
From: Geoff Schaller on 27 Dec 2009 19:37
<g> But you have helped contribute to the problem. What you should have done (and still now be doing) is flagging the end of support for certain platforms and situations. Give them time to plan and advise them of the costs. It is a normal thing to upgrade - whether you are talking about tools of trade, machinery or computer technology. We shouldn't be afraid of making the customer grow and adapt. Geoff "a.nederpelt(a)nederpelt.nl" <a.nederpelt(a)nederpelt.nl> wrote in message news:c8c53051-13ca-4367-93ac-19d734ededa1(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > The only problem is that my apps used to use ECONNECT for clipper. It > it to access Exact for Dos (dutch accounting system). So when the > client migrated to Windows version (16bits and btrieve) with no > database differences it was simple to replace ECONNECT with BTRIEVE > access. So i did that. Now the customer is still using my dos-app. > When they migrate to the newest (o well 9 years old already) Exact > Globe they need to migrate my app to .NET. So i am not stuck in the > 90's, i guess my customer is..... and i support it. > > Alwin |