Thread: Win2k? Really?

Win2k? Really?

From
Craig Ringer
Date:
Hi all

The FAQ says that win2k is supported, but the last buildfarm activity
for win2k was ages ago, and we've had a post recently saying it doesn't
work.

Buildfarm members for win2k:

  bandicoot - 1297 days ago
  bee - 1745 days ago
  trout - 1122 days ago

Should win2k be declared dead and dropped from the supported platform
list? It's over 10 years old, after all, and there's no evidence it's
tested anymore.

--
Craig Ringer

Tech-related writing: http://soapyfrogs.blogspot.com/

Re: Win2k? Really?

From
Craig Ringer
Date:
On 04/10/10 13:58, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The FAQ says that win2k is supported, but the last buildfarm activity
> for win2k was ages ago, and we've had a post recently saying it doesn't
> work.

Ah, never mind. The Windows-specific bits of the FAQ were badly out of
date in other places (still talking about the MSI installer, etc) so
I've gone over and cleaned it up. In the process I've removed references
to supported versions as much as possible, instead linking to existing
sources of such information like the download pages.

--
Craig Ringer

Tech-related writing: http://soapyfrogs.blogspot.com/

Re: Win2k? Really?

From
"Lumber Cartel, local 42"
Date:
On Oct 3, 10:58 pm, cr...@postnewspapers.com.au (Craig Ringer) wrote:
[sNip]
> Should win2k be declared dead and dropped from the supported platform
> list? It's over 10 years old, after all, and there's no evidence it's
> tested anymore.
[sNip]

I have one client who still uses Windows 2000, but it's not because of
budgetary or technical issues, rather it's a matter of personal
preference for the developer -- we're slowly getting him over to
Windows XP (this project to move to XP has been going on for many
years).

For all my other clients who used Windows 2000 at some point, many of
them have long ago upgraded to XP or 2003 or Vista, and today most are
on NetBSD Unix (after the disaster that was Vista, it was dead-easy to
convince people to switch to Unix for their database server needs).

I'm not concerned about Windows 2000 support at all.  What I do like
is that PostgreSQL 9 supports 64-bit Windows natively because all the
Windows 7 installations I've been involved in are 64-bit (the only
reason I would approve 32-bit is when there is a specific hardware
limitation, but that's usually cured quite easily with more money).

--
The Lumber Cartel, local 42 (Canadian branch)
Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
http://www.lumbercartel.ca/