Whether it's recommended to have a SP or not, fact is some people do not, and
until Gimp actually requires something that a SP installs, I don't see why it
couldn't continue to allow installs on non-SP Windows, they way it did up until
a recent version change.
FYI, I have a PC with WinXP that
, 28 Jan 2011 17:51:04 +, jack white wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to trick 2.6.11 into installing on XP with no SP's installed?
>
> Install SP2, install GIMP, uninstall SP2.
>
> --
&g
Is there a way to trick 2.6.11 into installing on XP with no SP's installed?
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:03:25 +
> From: jack white
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack?
> To:
>
>
> Except that 2.6.6 installs without SP2, but 2.6.11 won't
Except that 2.6.6 installs without SP2, but 2.6.11 won't install without it.
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:20:17 +0100
> From: Jernej Simon?i?
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack?
> To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:21:11
I noticed the 2.6.11 says SP2 is required for Windows XP. I know 2.6.6 works
fine without a Service Pack. Does 2.6.11 really require SP2? If so, is 2.6.7
the first version to require it?
___
Gimp-user mailing
