I seem to recall reading somewhere that the minimum requirements for a
runtime are the same as those for FileMaker8; specifically Win XP
Service Pack2.

I just did a quick test and the runtime solution seems to run on Win XP
Service Pack1, can anyone confirm that SP2 is required for some
specific reason.

If SP1 is enough on Win XP, what is the minimum service pack required
for Win 2000?

I know the simple answer is just do the updates, but at home here in
the country I'm still using dial-up... have you ever tried downloading
a 300MB service pack on dial-up?

FP wrote on (11/4/2005):

MicroSoft will send you SP2 on a CD at no charge:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...s/default.mspx

Matt

Matt Wills wrote:
I already have the update so that's not the concern for me.
I'm trying to determine what I information I need to put on my website;
should it say to a potential client not to bother downloading my demo
program if there system isn't up to date?

Matt Wills wrote:
Microsoft do something with no charge!?!?!?

{faints from shock}

;o)




Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Helpful Harry wrote on (11/6/2005):

It might be unusual, but not unprecedented.

They did damn near put Netscape out of business with one of their freebies.

I was working at Staples at the time, and we were doing brisk business
selling Navigator (2.x, I think) at nearly $50 a whack; we couldn't keep
enough in stock to satisfy demand. That came to a screeching halt when MS
decided to give away Internet Explorer. Billy Boy probably took care of
that out his pocket change.

This is a different thing, though. Not "drive the other guy out," but
rather "support our own product."

Matt

"> Microsoft do something with no charge!?!?!?

Well, the fact is MS does a lot for the Developer community at a loss so we
can write world class apps for windows. All of MS developer tools run at a
huge loss. MS practically gives away its tools such visual studio given the
actual cost ti took to create it.


Joe Mele
www.fmplugin.net
www.youseful.com

Youseful Software wrote:
You equate this effort to lock users into products developed for a
Windows Only world with "giving something away?" Excuse me?

IF what Microsoft "gave away" supported existing standards the way
other similar tools do, it might be different. When FEMA and American
Express both get bad press in a period of two months over the fact they
have each deployed important "public access" websites using technology
which claims to require a connection from a Windows machine, it is
quite hard to convince any reasonably knowledgable casual third-party
that Microsoft is "giving" anything away.

Huge loss on paper, perhaps, but only within a narrow view of the
overall impact of such "promotional" activities.

a) Let's not bring FEMA into this...

b) This would have a lot more credibility if we weren't in a FileMaker
newsgroup. Let's face it, FM is the ultimate in non-open-source,
non-standard, lock-in, browser-specific, got-you-by-the-cajones,
you-name-it... we love it because it's easy to create impressive results
quickly. If you believe in standards, then in addition to ditching Windows
you should also use that spiffy tool for code-free
MySQL/PHP/JavaScript/cross-browser visual site design (oops there isn't
one!)

c) We're not complaining about b) only because FileMaker doesn't have 80%+
market share.

d) ok, let's talk about FEMA... how much of a delay would have been
introduced by having the programmers test against every VIC-20 and Sinclair
ZX81 running Linux? I'm just relieved they got something together in less
than two months.

e) I support Massachusetts in their open computing efforts.

f) Anti-trust was the wrong way to go about fixing the problem; Microsoft
intellectual property should have been seized under Eminent Domain and every
line of source code published for review. Let's put the standards wars to
end forever.



Bill

<randall58 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

In article <ycqdnWNwP5gowfLeRVn-oA (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, wjm (AT) wjm (DOT) org says...

Actually we as filemaker users are plenty annoyed with IWP when it only
works in IE. We *expect* it to work from any MODERN browser, and we
complain to FM each and every time it doesn't... at least I do.

I'd also like to see a linux version of the client, but that's another
story.

How about just testing with current versions of Opera , Safari,
Netscape, Firefox, and IE.

In fact, as a web developer myself, I've found that if you develop to
published standards and test in Firefox and fix for IE its 99.9%
compatible with Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and Netscape -- and is
practically ALWAYS functional in them (minor cosmetic display hiccups
aside) with no further tweaking.

So sure, in fantasy land you can argue that they'd need to test Linux on
a vic-20 and that it would be too expensive, but in reality they really
just need to get it right on Firefox and IE. And that takes care of the
other major modern browsers well enough to get by ... and EVEN IF THEY
DON'T your users at least have the option of installing firefox on linux
and MacOSX so its not a total lockout.

Supporting *JUST* IE is unnacceptable for anything facing the general
public on the internet. Period.

Me too.