As long as XP is still supported by SDL, that wouldn’t solve the problem.
Jonny D
This reminds me: will SDL2 keep supporting Windows XP or what? Even 7
has been being phased out, though I can understand software support
outtlasting the OS support (people who still didn’t upgrade).
On the other hand, I know somebody who got it working on Windows 98 by
just using KernelEx and a few extra stub functions, so it looks like
SDL2 is barely even doing much with XP.
The great thing about SDL 1.2 is that it runs on Windows 95 all the way to Windows 8. I don’t know if it runs on Windows 10, but it wouldn’t surprise me. The graphics capabilities were limited, however, which is why SDL2 is a big deal. But if platform support is going to be limited to the latest versions of popular OSs, its usefulness is severely reduced.
Which is why it would be nice if maintainers clarified what are the
plans in the future, so at least we can get an idea of what to expect.
Of course features only present in newer OSes shouldn’t be expected to
work in older ones, it’s more of a question of whether programs will
keep working on old systems if you upgrade the library (which is bound
to happen e.g. if somebody rebuilds the program and the library was
obtained from the site rather than bundled with the program itself).
Which is why it would be nice if maintainers clarified what are the
plans in the future, so at least we can get an idea of what to expect.
It would also be nice if the maintainers actually supported the OSes they claim to! As I have pointed out before, and logged as a bug, despite SDL 2.0.4 officially still supporting OS-X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which runs on 32-bit Macs, the current versions of the Mac binaries are 64-bit only.
Which is why it would be nice if maintainers clarified what are the
plans in the future, so at least we can get an idea of what to expect.
It would also be nice if the maintainers actually supported the OSes they claim to! As I have pointed out before, and logged as a bug, despite SDL 2.0.4 officially still supporting OS-X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which runs on 32-bit Macs, the current versions of the Mac binaries are 64-bit only.
Messing up the release is not the same as not supporting something anymore…
Messing up the release is not the same as not supporting something anymore…
SDL 2.0.4, SDL_ttf 2.0.13 and SDL_ttf 2.0.14 binaries are all 64-bit only for Mac (I don’t know about the latest releases of SDL_image and SDL_mixer because I haven’t checked). For multiple releases to be affected like this makes me worry that it was deliberate. And if it was simply a “messed up release” wouldn’t you think somebody would have responded to my bug reports confirming that?
Messing up the release is not the same as not supporting something anymore…
SDL 2.0.4, SDL_ttf 2.0.13 and SDL_ttf 2.0.14 binaries are all 64-bit only for Mac (I don’t know about the latest releases of SDL_image and SDL_mixer because I haven’t checked). For multiple releases to be affected like this makes me worry that it was deliberate. And if it was simply a “messed up release” wouldn’t you think somebody would have responded to my bug reports confirming that?
I really don’t think that non-response is an indicator for either. Since all of those depend on the SDL 2.0.4 release, it makes sense for them to be all 64bit. They couldn’t be universal if SDL 2.0.4 is 64bit only. Since it is likely the same person made all of those releases, if he messed up it makes sense for everything to be messed up.
Why there is no response, who knows. SDL is seriously not packed with active developers and a lot of things are left unanswered, so I don’t think it is any indication whatsoever.
You can quickly build those frameworks yourself, btw…
You can quickly build those frameworks yourself, btw…
The only Mac I have is a 32-bit model running OS-X 10.6, and my understanding is that whilst that is officially supported for running SDL 2.0.4 it is not supported for building it. So if that’s right I have no way of running the build and creating the frameworks. I’ve more than once asked here for some kind person to do it for me, but there have been no takers.
If you believe SDL 2.0.4 can be built on OS-X 10.6 can you point me to a project file suitable for Xcode 3.2?
Ugg, Windows XP is dead, let it lay in the earth peacefully…
You may think that, but as a software developer with several customers who still use XP, and a product which I market as still supporting XP, it’s not an attitude I can afford to take.
anyway, derailing a thread is a sure way to get attention
Um no, it’s part of the same thing, it’s also about an old operating
system that was killed off by its vendor long ago but that SDL2 still
supports. I guess the main difference is that finding something that
can build for Windows XP is still easy, while Apple actively took
steps to ensure it’s practically impossible to get things done for
their older systems.
Well, I’m on OS X 10.11 and am still regularily compiling snapshots of software that runs on OS X 10.4 ppc (though these are using SDL 1.2 - for SDL2 dependent software I’m using 10.7 as minimum target due to deprecated audio code)
Dominus wrote:
You can quickly build those frameworks yourself, btw…
The only Mac I have is a 32-bit model running OS-X 10.6, and my
understanding is that whilst that is officially supported for running
SDL 2.0.4 it is not supported for building it. So if that’s right I
have no way of running the build and creating the frameworks. I’ve
more than once asked here for some kind person to do it for me, but
there have been no takers.
If you believe SDL 2.0.4 can be built on OS-X 10.6 can you point me to
a project file suitable for Xcode 3.2?
Here are my SDL2 builds that I use in all of my game ports for various platforms.??? This includes 32bit and 64bit Mac libraries targeting 10.6+.
Thanks, but I’m not sure how practical it would be to change my Xcode build from using frameworks to linking with the .dylib; I’d rather not switch to a Unix-style build.
The great thing about SDL 1.2 is that it runs on Windows 95 all the way to Windows 8. I don’t know if it runs on Windows 10, but it wouldn’t surprise me. The graphics capabilities were limited, however, which is why SDL2 is a big deal. But if platform support is going to be limited to the latest versions of popular OSs, its usefulness is severely reduced.
It definitely runs on Windows 10 since DOSBox currently uses a version of SDL from the 1.x branch (though some have been working on builds that use the 2.x branch).
I would like to add that performance-wise, SDL1.2 has serious issues from Vista upwards hen combining GDI with SDL.> On 15 Aug 2016, at 08:05, Bandock wrote:
BenoitRen wrote:
The great thing about SDL 1.2 is that it runs on Windows 95 all the way to Windows 8. I don’t know if it runs on Windows 10, but it wouldn’t surprise me. The graphics capabilities were limited, however, which is why SDL2 is a big deal. But if platform support is going to be limited to the latest versions of popular OSs, its usefulness is severely reduced.
It definitely runs on Windows 10 since DOSBox currently uses a version of SDL from the 1.x branch (though some have been working on builds that use the 2.x branch).
nerdsOn Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:54 AM, jeroen clarysse <jeroen.clarysse at telenet.be wrote:
I would like to add that performance-wise, SDL1.2 has serious issues from
Vista upwards hen combining GDI with SDL.
On 15 Aug 2016, at 08:05, Bandock wrote:
BenoitRen wrote:
The great thing about SDL 1.2 is that it runs on Windows 95 all the way
to Windows 8. I don’t know if it runs on Windows 10, but it wouldn’t
surprise me. The graphics capabilities were limited, however, which is why
SDL2 is a big deal. But if platform support is going to be limited to the
latest versions of popular OSs, its usefulness is severely reduced.
It definitely runs on Windows 10 since DOSBox currently uses a version
of SDL from the 1.x branch (though some have been working on builds that
use the 2.x branch).
(though these are using SDL 1.2 - for SDL2 dependent software I’m using 10.7 as minimum target due to deprecated audio code)