I'd like to see an 2K/XP only version of the whole ObjectDesktop, as I'm sure it would speed and refine things no end.

Read this link:
http://download.com.com/3302-2326-10131236.html?ob=1&pn=1&fb=0

Sort it by date.

Now look at the number of people who say WindowBlinds is horribly buggy and slow for them. I'd bet nearly all of them are running Windows 98 and ME.

I don't think it's realistic to drop Windows 98 and ME support in the present time. The question is when to do so. No one supports Windows 3.1 anymore. Windows 95 is supported by hardly anyone.

How many people, many of whom may be running Windows 2000 and XP where WindowBlinds is almost certainly going to run flawlessly, read the reviews in the link above and are dissuaded from trying out WindowBlinds?

How many more people are going to download it on their overburdneed Windows 98 machine and find problems and then when they do upgrade to Windows XP only remember that they had problems?

That's my concern. And not to be critical of certain Windows 98 users but they don't tend to be very helpful. They'll just throw up their hands and say "WindowBlinds doesn't work". We get very few useful reports on how we might at least be able to work around problems on Windows 98. All we know is that the Windows 98 and ME machines in our testing labs work fine with WindowBlinds. But we don't have 50 different video cards to test against on Windows 98 and ME.

One possible solution may be that when WindowBlinds 4 comes out to actually have two seperate versions. I.e. some sort of WindowBlinds XP v4 and a WindowBlinds 4. I dunno, there is no easy solution.

The more powerful desktop enhancements get, the harder it is to get them to work on the DOS based versions of Windows.

I used to run WB on my NT4 machine at work about a year ago. It worked but would cause problems. It was a cold and lonely day when I finally gave up on it. Oddly DX still ran well.

I would suggest going to two versions. One that works OK on 98 and one that works with 2K/XP. You will still get lots of complaints from users that don't bother to read that, "This is for Win2000/XP. For the Win98Griffinme version please go here." It should help though.

Would there be problems with skins that are written for XP not being compatible with a 98 version? It was mentioned earlier that things like per pixel shading are not supported under 98. You might need to put into the 98 version a warning system, "This skin uses features not supported with this version of WB."

Drop 98 and ME support and sell less, make less, charge more. Humm, sounds like plan... Out of everyone I know real well, 7 out of 10 of them have 98. They dont care about new features of newer releses of OS's, and they are not gona pay for something they don't need or want.

When Microsoft drops support for 2000, that will be one of their biggest mistakes ever. They are fixing to drop NT (if they havent yet), and I have not seen many people happy about XP or .net (in the server world). They all want to stick to the NT platform and move to 2000. Why fix it if it is'nt broke? Most Windows 2000 servers run fine, so why would people want or need to upgrade? Some of my friends companies are moving to the Unix platform because it is chepper than microsoft's new licence plan. And most of the other friends companies have alwase used Unix.

But sometime next year, 2000 gets dropped, and it wont affect me , because wether they drop it or not, I will still use it. So what if the latest video cards dont support it in the future, I still use an SiS 8mb vidrocard that runs fine, + I cant afford an upgrade.
I bought it a year ago for $300 and have no plans ever to spend another $200-$300 for an upgrade. There is nothing Microsoft can do to move me to XP. Even if they basicly force me to, I would gladly take Linux over Windows.

You should have a button in the Windowblinds config that will do a quick analysis of the system and provide some suggestions. If it appears there is a lot running at startup, a message could say if WB is running slow, try turning off some of the other apps running at startup etc. Kind of like a quick diagnostic. If I remember right, the beta of the new WinFX has something like this.

I ran windows ME with window blinds a lot, and it worked great... as long as I wasn't doing anything else at the time... But people should realize that 98mattbratt are just crap! UPGRADE for your own benifite...I have 4 computers in my house that I'm responsible for, and let me tell you the 2 that are ME's are a nightmare to maintain, the XP and the 2K are jewls! So really, I wish people would understand that their operating system and computer config is what makes enhancing components work or fail....

I did not say that Paul Doland sucks!!! This site seems to subsititue your own name when you type slash M E.

Just wondering. How many W98 customers did Stardock get when XP came out? People who wanted their GUI to look like XP or any of cool skins available here? And WindowBlinds and OB and other Stardock apps were the only way for them to do that? (No ThemeXP available for 9x, after all.) I'd guess more than a few.

I also recall comments in the ngs by Stardock after the WB 3.0 release about their desire to make WB more 98 friendly since not everyone will be running XP for quite a while and there's will still be a significant 9x user base.

For example, I'm running WB and OB on 98 and am aware of the limitations of the OS re: resources. I take care regarding what I run on my machine and rarely have problems of any magnitude worth mentioning. I became an OD subscriber (as well as a WC subscriber) all with my allegedly POS OS and PC. It just runs and works, as does my work machine which will not have an upgrade (software and hardware) for at least another year (I looked at their deployment plan). (And as far as MS support of the OS, what's that got to do with anything, really? Haven't had that [or needed it] in years.)

So is the critical issue for Stardock that it's too difficult or burdensome for Stardock to continue to support 9x? Not feasible or cost effective/beneficial to have an OS specific WB? If so, fine. Or is the primary issue (mentioned above) which really generated this discussion is that Stardock is concerned about comments at download.com and other sites from alleged 98 users? (And Stardock blames the OS and the users who must be clueless because they're running that OS? Gee, 98 was just fine for WB when I signed up as an OD subscriber. )

So is the decision point really based on support issues or PR concerns? Does Stardock seriously think there'll be no more "Windowblinds SUCKS" "It crashed my machine and I had to reformat" kinds of comments at download.com once only XP is supported? And if these comments don't stop what will Stardock do then? Blame the OS and the users?

Hopefully Stardock develops its business plans based on something more grounded than what anonymous yahoos say at download.com and usenet.

Rather than "document" what is said at download.com (as if that's a credible source of information for statistical analysis) why not actually survey your registered users? Not just a poll on the website, or the discussion here since not all users engage here, but send out an email survey. Give your paying customers a chance to have a say, if that's what you want.

Just an observation, but if there are other users out there like C²zero paying similar prices for computer hardware that C²zero paid for the SiS video card, then that may be why you cannot afford new hardware. This observation is not meant to be a slam on C²zero, but, folks, you may want to shop around or ask your "geek" friends about where to get hardware and software. Sixty-four (64) MB cards were going for as low as $200 last year at this time.

With respect to my experience with OBNT, I'm nearing my third renewal for the suite of products. I've used the software on machines ranging from an AMD -2 300 with 64 MB of RAM to my current machine, which is an AMD Athlon 850 with 512 MB of RAM. I only recently purchased XP. Prior to it, I used ODNT on an AMD -2 450 running 98, 98SE and WinME. As I upgraded versions of windows, I used WB 1.x and alpha/beta versions of DX. I can honestly say I didn't have any major problems with any system configuration.

As many have said here, there were the occational skins that didn't play nice, but overall my system performed as expected. Ah, "as expected." Yes, perhaps that is the issue: Users load their systems up with programs then throw ODNT in the mix...not in all cases, but I cannot believe that people using ODNT are "casual users" who don't also try other software that's out at download.com, tucows.com or nonags.com.

Solution: Make two different versions of the suite and apps within the suite: "Windowblinds Classic" and "Windowblinds 2002" for example. The "2002" nomenclature would increment as makes sense, "IP 2002", "ODNT 2003", "DX 2004", etc. If a user attempts to install the "2002" version of the software on a pre-NT kernel machine, they get a warning about the 2000/XP version potentially having unwanted effects on Win9x versions. Furthermore, notify your customer base that further development of enhancements for the "Classic" version will cease on "blah blah" date, but that you will continue to support the software (tech support, bug fixes, forums, whatever). You continue to support the product and many will continue to skin for it - just no further enhancements.

As far as full-blown product support, I think Stardock should follow the lead of MS. I'm not an MS "fan" by any means, but 2000 and XP have features that 9x will never support. Stop supporting the "Classic" version when MS is no longer supporting the OS for which it is intended.

RE: Citizen Paul Doland:
Citizen C²zero says that 98 was a great OS for its time. Um, no, it wasn't. Though OS/2 never reached critical mass, it was a far better, far more stable OS and was out years earlier.

me:
I still use PCDOS 2000 and OS/2 on a few PCs
My only problem with OS/2 is that it was a pain to get it setup. IBM rules!
_____

RE: Developer Trizub:
Just an observation, but if there are other users out there like C²zero paying similar prices for computer hardware that C²zero paid for the SiS video card, then that may be why you cannot afford new hardware. This observation is not meant to be a slam on C²zero, but, folks, you may want to shop around or ask your "geek" friends about where to get hardware and software.


Hey, that video card came onbord, and the mainbord dose not have an AGP slot. I got it about 2yrs ago, over clocked my celeron 600 to run at 900, and got a CD-RW. You can say my PC is dated all you want, I don't care. I can't afford to upgrade anything (I am 15 and don't have a job). + my PC runs fine enuff for me (I don't play to many games, that is what the PS2 is for, I don't use heavy resorce grafic programs (can't afford them either, and I don't pirate), and I am one of those geek friends. I know what is out there, I know what is the "best". And I only have $5.00 and a bestbuy gift card with $15 on it. And, I am really trying to save up for a BMW 325i . I saw one yesterda... maby later.

Said by karma tba: "Those of you who have not upgraded for one reason or another I respect your decision but resistance is futile. Do yourself a favor let go,save up,and move on."

Why? What are the compelling reasons to upgrade? Not the reasons you had, but reasons for someone else who sees no need to upgrade?

For me it's not a matter of resistance or a lack of resources. I don't buy a new car every two, three years either, although I could do so if I wanted. Yeah they're shiny and new, but if my current ones do what I want and need, there's really no compelling reason to change ASAP. It's entirely discretionary.

If people want to upgrade, fine, but why *should* anyone upgrade if there is no compelling reason to do so? As an NT flavor XP reputedly is more stable. (Although I've seen lots of evidently clueless XP users in support forums begging for help and reformatting after a few weeks which I've never had to do in all the years with 98. Just goes to show that clueless users will always be with us and the OS is not always to blame.) But if stability is not a critical problem, what compelling reason is there to upgrade? It's really not a one size fits all proposition. Not everyone has the same needs, wants or priorities.

Actually I've nothing against XP except MS' increasingly intrusive Borgness and fondness for running unnecessary services and open ports. I'm sure I'd quite like it (and its "cartoony" GUI) although it takes a bit more effort to secure on its own. But I'd give any MS OS at least 6 months to a year in release so that issues are known and there's an SP1 or some such update. So while I certainly don't dissuade anyone from upgrading if they so choose, I don't understand the apparent desire to proselytize to those who haven't.

The problem with developing separate versions is that then everybody suffers, because focus and manpower would be going in two different directions.

I'd rather they focus their development on the current standard, and those using the old standard can continue to use the 3.x series indefinitely.

It's not like v3.x is going to stop working if Stardock drops support.

i am using windows me
i hope they conuing
making all work with me