[sword-devel] Wiki front end comparison

[DM Smith]

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.
>
> The case for BibleCS is that you lose Unicode features in the OS as 
> you travel back in time. So from 95 to 98/Me you gain some features, 
> but none of these are really Unicode supporting OSes. NT4 through 7, 
> being all of them based on the original NT 3.1 codebase that supported 
> Unicode from the ground up, all handle Unicode text fairly well and 
> don't require any of the right-to-left hackery included to do proper 
> Hebrew & Arabic display on 9x.
>
> That's all just to say that I'm not sure whether we can collapse these 
> different versions into 2 clear categories--and if so, whether NT4 is 
> in the right category.


I'm not sure either. Feel free to change it. The point was that some 
applications don't run on earlier OSes. I don't know what the boundary is.

Perhaps NT3 is in the former and NT4 is in the latter.

I think it is still important to call out 2000.

Perhaps 2000+/XP+?

We still get support requests about Windows 98. I haven't seen one for 
95 in years.

In Him,
    DM