Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME's GTK+ Finally Getting Close To Dropping Windows XP Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Luxury indeed

    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Yeah, that is great for people who get to pick their operating system. Not everyone has that luxury.
    Yeah-some of us who have to deal with securing computers against nation-state level attackers or even regional police agencies do not have the luxury of choosing a closed operating system written by allies (or owners) of the very states our machines are secured against. Encryption keeps people out of jails, torture chambers, and executions around the world, and backdoors in closed software put that protection in danger.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mr_tawan View Post
      May be I've missed something, but I think GTK still refers to GIMP toolkit (although it is maintained by GNOME people now).
      Thank you for being the single sane person in this thread. All the 'Why is Gnome dropping support for XP?!?! OMG, Gnome sucks!' GTK just happens to be the toolkit they adopted and it's actually originally the one that they created to create Gimp. Which I think is rather funny, because I'm not sure, but I think Gimp still hasn't been ported to GTK3

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by leech View Post
        Thank you for being the single sane person in this thread. All the 'Why is Gnome dropping support for XP?!?! OMG, Gnome sucks!' GTK just happens to be the toolkit they adopted and it's actually originally the one that they created to create Gimp. Which I think is rather funny, because I'm not sure, but I think Gimp still hasn't been ported to GTK3
        You missed all the people on the first page who applauded this as a good move.

        Comment


        • #34
          LOL !
          As if to be supported had kind of meaning

          Cases in point:

          1) GPU-Z officially is supported and works in WinXP...only that it actually DOESN'T work with AMD APUs like Trinity...so much for support

          2) If you see many games in Steam, many of new ones claim minimum Windows version as VISTA or W7...
          ...but then you will also notice minimum is also 32bit and DirectX 9.0c.
          Guess what happens to those games when installed in a Win XP Box ?
          Exactly, 99% of the time (actually didn't find any that didn't work out) they work just fine in Windows XP.


          As long as there is new games that continue support 32bit and DirectX 9.0c, there will be new games for XP...


          ....and taking in account Win10 will have a 32bit version and if M$ will do same thing for upgrades at low cost that did with Win8, you can bet that anyone with a copy of 32bit Window$ 32bit will have no choice to upgrade to Win10 32bit at low cost than go with 32bit version.

          Add to this the interest of Intel and AMD in low power CPU/APU and stage is set to DirectX 9.0c continue to be supported at least in a part of new games... (Dx9 is much faster than Dx10 or Dx11 for same quality settings).


          Yeah, there's Dx12 and Vulkan for future games...but when making a new game, devs have to target the widest possible base...DX12 and Vulkan will work only in recent/new i/dGPUs, so Dx9 support for new games, in special in areas like F2P, it's always a must have.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
            ... Webkit requires SSE2 so it won't run on most XP's that hadn't been updated because hardware was too old anyway
            AFAIR SSE2 came with Pentium 4 in 2000. Very old hardware indeed!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by drSeehas View Post
              AFAIR SSE2 came with Pentium 4 in 2000. Very old hardware indeed!
              Well, Windows has only required it since Win8. I think SSE1 became mandatory in Vista or so which also prevented significant amounts of people from upgrading upwards from XP

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                Well, Windows has only required it since Win8. I think SSE1 became mandatory in Vista or so which also prevented significant amounts of people from upgrading upwards from XP
                Well, Windows XP started October 25, 2001, nearly one year AFTER Pentium 4 with SSE2. I assume most devices delivered with Windows XP have already a CPU with SSE2 support.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by drSeehas View Post
                  Well, Windows XP started October 25, 2001, nearly one year AFTER Pentium 4 with SSE2. I assume most devices delivered with Windows XP have already a CPU with SSE2 support.
                  Well, your facts on when XP was made was right but your assumption sadly not. A lot of software that targets XP still have a hard requirement that they must run on CPU's without SSE1. Trust me, companies wouldn't go through the effort for one or two users.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                    ... A lot of software that targets XP still have a hard requirement that they must run on CPU's without SSE1. ...
                    How can a software have the hard requirement running on CPU's without SSEx?
                    If you don't want SSEx, just don't use it.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X