2015R3 32Bit Build does not run on Win XP

Anybody experienced trouble with a build for Windows XP from Xojo 2015R3? I am running 2015R3 on OSX 10.11.1.

Tried to run one of my apps in debug mode on my well proven long standing XP box today, surprisingly it didn’t work (hadn’t tried before in R3 - in R2 everything was fine).

The (german) errormessage of my XP box said something like ‘procedure entry point “inet_top” not found in DLL “WS2_32.dll”’, followed by another message (english this time): “Failed to locate Framework DLL”.

Thinking there might be something with the Remote Debugger I updated this to the version that comes with R3 - no change.

Then I built the app - 32Bit, yes - same error message. Same build runs fine on Win X though, hadn’t have time yet to try somewhere else.

I am using some of the fine MonkeyBread plugins (mostly for PDF) and the plugin for our cubeSQL database server - but I don’t think it has anything to do with them since … the same thing happens when I build a new project; just one window and one button - nothing else.

I filed a case (#41346) … anybody else ran into trouble like this?

Bests,

Jan

I believe the last version that support building apps for WinXP is 2015r2.4.

http://developer.xojo.com/deprecations

Ouch, looks like you’re right. I read somewhere that this is only for the IDE, not for builds. But there it is. It helps to get to the source.

Well … thank you!

:slight_smile:

I think this important information should be more evident in the product announcements.

Many Windows users, particularly the older ones with limited applications, are very suspicious of Windows and prefer to hang on to XP if it works. In my case, I include 2-3 XP users in the beta testers so I would have encountered the problem before a product release, but I would not have expected it to be the result of my development version. I did look over the release notes, but did not see anything (even if it is there). Dropping a build capability for a major OS is an important fact!

Does it reasonable to develop in 5r3 and then just build in 5r2.4?

It’s best to develop in whichever release you plan to compile with since project file formats and features can change from one release to the next. Going backward to compile is a bit more risky than forward because the IDE cannot be forward compatible but may be backward compatible in terms of project file format.

I met people who will not upgrade from XP to 10 because (old hardware, and upgrade price) of Windows 10 said “spy features”…

In tons of locations, the update cannot be afforded: too old hardware as an example beteen others (and the software they use does not exists anymore) or… simply they do not understand the upgrade frenzy.

At last, I met a University Professor (at Strasbourg) who never upgrade “because I use the OS that was developed for this hardware”.

Who am I to tell them they are wrong ?
What args can be given to convince them “upgrades are good for you” (if they do not saw any problem in their actual use) ?

[quote=224078:@Emile Schwarz]At last, I met a University Professor (at Strasbourg) who never upgrade “because I use the OS that was developed for this hardware”.

Who am I to tell them they are wrong ?
What args can be given to convince them “upgrades are good for you” (if they do not saw any problem in their actual use) ?[/quote]

I have a neighbor who uses a ten years old HP laptop with XP Service Pack 2. He tried installing SP3 and it messed up his machine. So he had to reinstall with SP2 and has been a happy camper ever since.

That is the main issue on Windows. It works too well on machines that refuse to die, and supports software that is beyond antique. Tell Adobe about Photoshop from the nineties they would kill to upgrade. So much so they went for the online subscription model.

I don’t think users who are satisfied with their vintage equipment should be told they are wrong. They simply have other priorities. Now, for a developer, deciding to support old clunkers is not insignificant. I do not. In terms of statistics, demands for older versions has always been anecdotal anyway, so I do not see the point in wasting time.

Apple is much nicer for developers. With a new system per year and new glitzy machines to run it, obsolescence requires users to upgrade all the time. Goodie goodie goodie :slight_smile:

I wonder if that’s because his machine has been 100% root-kitted and is now part of a spambot net? :slight_smile:

[quote=224092:@Michel Bujardet]
Apple is much nicer for developers. With a new system per year and new glitzy machines to run it, obsolescence requires users to upgrade all the time. Goodie goodie goodie :)[/quote]
As opposed to Windows where you keep all the 20+ year old APIs that are security holes anyone can drive a truck through ?

Some linux distros seem to have a nice balance between deprecating everything thats older than 6 months (Apple) and never updating or deprecating anything (MS) and thats the LTS releases you see from Ubuntu
I wish Apple would do that

[quote=224318:@Norman Palardy]As opposed to Windows where you keep all the 20+ year old APIs that are security holes anyone can drive a truck through ?
[/quote]

Besides the security holes, Apple forcing users to buy new apps is a boon for developers. For instance, Photoshop 1997 still works perfectly under Windows 10. My PPC copy of Photoshop for Mac went pumpkin when Lion came. That’s a new sale. Being cynical, users misfortune is our profit :wink:

Apple is a bit extreme, though. And it seems they are intent on doing the same with iOS.

Sure … but thats the downside of MS approach

Like I said it would be nice to have somewhere in between the tow extremes - Apple on one end & MS on the other

The Ubuntu LTS distros seem a nice middle ground

[quote=224434:@Norman Palardy]Sure … but thats the downside of MS approach

Like I said it would be nice to have somewhere in between the tow extremes - Apple on one end & MS on the other

The Ubuntu LTS distros seem a nice middle ground[/quote]

Well, Ubuntu 64 bit coming with no 32 bit compatibility is not very nice either. At least El Capitan is 64 bit but runs 32 bit apps, so does Windows 64 bit.

But you are right. Between Windows revering antiquities and Apple throwing elders under the bus, there should be a middle ground.

[quote=224441:@Michel Bujardet]Well, Ubuntu 64 bit coming with no 32 bit compatibility is not very nice either. At least El Capitan is 64 bit but runs 32 bit apps, so does Windows 64 bit.
[/quote]
Thats an OS / API design choice and sadly it seems Linux took the hardest route

The real beauty of Linux is that you get to decide “when” to upgrade. You can still get old code versions for new machines. You can plan your hardware migrations. The minute you are behooven to either the MS or the Apple migration cycle you are stuck. Conversely, you also have to be responsible to take care of it.

We virtualize and sandbox old Windows workstations to extend the life of older applications or environments. We still have customers with VB6 applications that refuse to spend money to replace them. We could walk away, but we still make money fixing them on VM’d old workstations. It would be virtually impossible to build a new workstation to maintain those programs. We have the old VB installs, but any 3rd party extensions are long gone…

IMHO
AND this IS just MY opinion & you might feel differently
But I am entitled to my opinion whether you agree or not

Not I’ll put on my flame suit :stuck_out_tongue:

Linux is just too damned much work to just regularly
Windows and OS X dont require me to do nearly the same level of poking around that Linux requires to just install & use it
And most of the distros I truly dislike their window managers - ubuntu is getting worse each release
Windows (even windows 8 and 10) & OS X are far better
Mint is about the best one and it’s still not nearly as nice

Norm - you are entitled, and to each his own.

IMHO - Platform fit is dependent on both the organization and application(s) you are working with.

Workstation Perspective:
With small to medium companies you are probably dead on. There is too much specific knowledge to configure and maintain low volumes of equipment. None of the Linux ‘vendors’ have figured this out. It shouldn’t take a programmer to build a basic workstation.

Larger organizations, in contrast, pay huge amounts of money for licensing MS products on their workstations. In return, MS continues to re-invent user interfaces to applications like Office. This costs a lot of money in terms of user re-training, formal or just figuring it out.

It wasn’t for a long time, but frankly Open Office at this point is as good or better than MS Office, excluding some specialized functions. It also has the added advantage that it has menus that stay put, didn’t turn into iconic ribbons, and it doesn’t force you to work like you’re on an Android or iPhone. People are creatures of habit, they work more efficiently when their environment stays the same.

If you want any form of hardware consistency MS and Apple also add many thousands if not millions of expenses to constantly upgrade hardware. The cost of a select few knowledgeable people to build ‘a corporate workstation distro’ for a common hardware platform would seem to be a lot cheaper. Once it’s built, many end users show little knowledge or concern about the underlying platform. I am always shocked when people don’t even understand basic things like the file system. I answer more questions about ‘lost files’ on the MAC and Windows than I would care to admit. For the record, Mint is also my preferred Window Manager.

Server Perspective:
There is just no comparison. Servers are inherently more complicated, and they tend to remain more stable over time. It takes specialized skills to build and maintain them anyway. Linux gives you a lot more latitude to:

  • strip away unneeded components (less hackable/less to break)
  • selectively patch software
  • update company specific software on your own schedule
  • more readily identify what the machine is doing

Using Linux servers and VMs is like using a cheaper, open source version of DEC VAX machines in days of old, they just keep running!! We don’t even install an X windows manager on our servers; there is no reason, and it keeps the machines simpler. This is why Xojo is in our toolkit. We can develop cost effective applications that are NOT Windows/ DOT NET dependent. They can be upgraded and managed and upgraded for YEARS without major intervention.

It’s would be just great to place the Xojo XP support deprecation in BIG letters, just to be in knowledge of it. In my case it is very likely that many users have still XP and if they for whatever reason don’t want to upgrade, probably will look at another provider, ditching my services.
Actually for many reasons XP still works great, aside from the security problems.

It is sad. Many tools I use have still support for XP and up. Some deep features like screen composition, layering and others, are features that do not affect a simple application for business, for example.

It’s a choice - no one is forcing you to use the latest version of Xojo. You can still use 2015r2.4 to build for XP. Or, you can use the newer version of Xojo and build for everything but XP.

We did do a blog post on this: Goodbye, Windows XP.

It is also noted in a couple places on the Deprecations page, although not in big letters.

Well this explains a lot… LOL. I had a perfectly running app on my mac and suddenly it goes out to lunch on some key things on the windows 7 VM… But that’s okay… I didn’t even consider the VM was a 32 bit version.