pouët.net

and i do have quiet modern hardware.

so please, do not drop win2000 support in crinkler, if its possible!

Just wondering, considering you have quite modern hardware, why are you still using win2000?

because i like it and feel absolutely no urge to update.

why is there so much aggressive spirit against using an old os anyway?

Huh? just asking? No aggression here.

i mean generally in this thread.

I know those who favor Win2000 over the other Windows varieties as the OS on their server machine, because of its stability. But their work machine would use the latest Win version, so it does not matter really.

i wouldnt set up win2k on a new computer nowadays, too many issues you have to take care of security wise. sure, once you have taken care of all that, it's a slim and fast system. IIRC, WMI Support is limited and of course there's no directx10, but that's not available in xp either. :p

but seriously, who wants windows 2000 when there's windows 7? i'm not trying to be aggressive here, but i'm seeing *some* progression in the windows os development that makes w2k in my eyes just outdated.

(ok i admit, i fallen in love with the rc candidate of windows 7 and i never even booted my other os ever again. the propaganda must have worked on me! my opinion: ditch win2k support in favor for w7)

using windows xp myself.. but I have a original cd of windows 1998 here. if anybody is interested I can send if by snail mail for free :)

using vista x64 myself.. but i still have the original of os2/warp on ~100x 1"44 disks here. if anybody is interested i can send these one by one by pigeon mail for free (given that this person provides the pigeon) :)

one pigeon to carry ~100 disks?... dude! :D

i said one by one

at least it's slow then

I have 2 original Windows 95 CDs here.

Will you support Windows XBOX 720 8 BLACK EDITION PRO?

I thought it was a pretty standard affair to provide both packed and unpacked executables for 4k.

In which case this whole matter is moot, what counts are compo machines.

However when people grow confident with a packer they sometimes forget to include the unpacked version.. It'd be really nice if an unpacker was "made possible."

It was pretty standard affair four years ago when people were using ad-hoc and incompatible compression methods for 4k intros. The "what counts are compo machines" attitude was a continual pain to demo watchers and was giving the whole 4k genre a bad reputation.

The practice does to some extent continue to this day, but it is really just an old habit. One of the main goals of Crinkler was to eliminate the need for such shoddy measures.

To paraphrase the Crinkler manual: 4k intros should be 4 kilobytes in size.

Blueberry: I'd vote for a /WIN2K commandline argument, which outputs an executable the old fashion way. Intro makers won't have much more effort in providing two binaries for every system. You see that there are different binaries for screen resolutions, why not for different OSs?

Thanks a lot to everyone for the comments in this thread. It does indeed seem like dropping Windows 2000 support is the right thing to do. From the feedback given here, the decision seems even less controversial than I had expected.

As for the suggestion of adding a WIN2K switch: This would be sending a message to 4k intro makers that 4k intros are made for specific systems and that it is the responsibility of the intro maker to deliver versions for every system that the intro is intended to run on.

This is the exact opposite of the message we want to send: That the intro maker should just worry about the intro itself and that it is the responsibility of the compression program that the compressed executable works on all relevant systems.

We would much rather declare Windows 2000 deprecated as a demo platform than go down this route.

Another things that occurred to me: The number of people potentially missing out on demos because they are running Windows 2000 is probably much smaller than the number doing so because they are running MacOS or Linux (or something even more bizarre). In any case, it is a conscious choice - you get something, you lose something.

This line of thought made me curious: How many modern demos do actually work on Windows 2000 as it is?

:(((

Yeah, apologies to you, dipswitch. I do appreciate your feedback as well. (It would have been all too idyllic if no one objected, wouldn't it?)

Perhaps you can help me answer my last question?

does win 2000 even fully support modern hardware?

Very good point... It would seem (from a bit of looking around at driver download pages and other places) that both NVIDIA and ATI dropped support for Windows 2000 at the introduction of DirectX10 class hardware.

Can anyone confirm this? dipswitch, what exactly is the "quite modern hardware" you have in your Windows 2000 machine?

and what drivers

I'm with dipswitch here.
For 4/16/64k I'd say keep it (even tho it will prolly make things harder for coders), as for demos I'm used to recordings as my hardware is 3 years old by now.

wtf?! keep it for stuff that would NEED the size, but drop it for stuff that will be compatible anyway and doesnt use crinkler in the first place?!