On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
Chris Little wrote:
Peter von Kaehne wrote:
The OS support I would simply do as previous - one row only, but
maybe
with icons to make faster to read. Win95+ or WinXP+ is adequate
instead
of a whole list of variants (unless newer Wins do not work).
This may seem a minor matter, but I'm not sure whether the current
division of 95/98/NT/Me vs. 2000/XP/Vista/7 is correct. If it
really is
the case that front ends don't work on specifically the former set
and
do work on the latter, then that's fine, but in my experience the
split
is slightly different and is less a dichotomy than a gradient.
I think in terms of other frontends they are simply not ever tested on
anything older the Windows 2000. So the distinction, while technically
not so meritorious is factually probably correct in so far as BibleCS
and BD are the only ones who have been around long enough to be tested
on the first group.
FYI,
I have a Windows 98 laptop and a Windows 2000 desktop on which I test
each release of Bible Desktop. Though I might not do it much longer.
-- DM
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
