Windows7 Compatible for filePro

[Fairlight]

Simon--er, no...it was Nancy Palmquist--said:
> Guys,
> 
> I am wondering if anyone would suggest that filePro 5.6 is Windows 7 
> compatible.  I can certainly install it and make it work on my Windows7 
> computer.  I had to license it to the Drive ID, but it works.

Then technically, I'd say it's compatible.

The reality is that I can't think of anything that fP does that's not
compatible, unless Windows entirely stripped out the "DOS" type console, or
changed the API to it.  If fP runs, the rest is pretty generic.  I've not
seen the internals, but just by looking at what it does and doesn't do,
there's nothing magical there that seems to rely on specific versions of
any given OS, barring shared library version issues on linux.

> My hesitation is in the area of printing.  I am seeing a real disconnect 
> with the ability to print from filePro to the new printers available for 
> new machines with Win7.
> 
> The newer printers seem to have PCL6 instead of PCL5.

Try using PrintWizard from Rasmussen Software?

PCL6 is not a Windows 7 thing, it's a printer industry thing.  Blame HP.

> If filepro would provide, out of the box, a proper way to handle 
> printing on Windows, I think I would feel better about suggesting that 
> my software - built under filepro - is windows 7 compatible.

Luck on that.  :/  If it hasn't happened in the last half decade, I don't
see it happening anytime soon, if ever.

> Also, I have no good way to provide an installation CD for my MOS 
> software that will properly install both the filePro runtime and my 
> application.  I am still hung up on that licensing requirement that they 
> download a file, instead of an interface that allows them to enter an 
> activation code on the screen.  My customers are stuck on 5.0 for this 
> application, because there is no way I can distribute an application and 
> have the end user get a license file, supply a license file on a 
> "diskette?" .

-Assuming- that you don't mind an installer just copying files to their
proper location, rather than doing a full, official "finish" each time,
what about making an actual setup installer with something like InnoSetup,
or NSIS?  You could make that install everything, both fP and the custom
system you have.  Actually, you could have InnoSetup run "finish",
technically speaking, but that seems like a Bad Idea[tm] to give the power
to screw that up to a customer.

As for the license...it just depends how you do it.  Do you get the license
for them anyway and install it yourself, or do you have them go through the
actual licensing step on the way?  Because if it's the latter, there's
quite possibly a way to programmatically grab the required information and
post it to the fP-Tech web site, then download the file.  It would involve
writing an application to do so, however, and then having the installer run
that program.  You'd just bundle it into the installer and have the
installer run it as part of the install process--just like lots of programs
run sub-installers for the Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Runtime Executable
Libraries, or DirectX.  Same principle, except this program needs to get
data from the system and then grab the right stuff from fP-Tech.

If you get the license for them yourself anyway, you could just copy the
license file to the right spot in the distribution and recompile a new
installer for each client.  That's the dead easy way of doing it.

> So to tell Microsoft that I have tested my application and it is Windows 
> 7 compatible has left me cold.  I don't think filePro has the features 
> that would meet that level of functionality on Windows7.

You're actually wanting to bother with Windows 7 certification?  I
wouldn't.  I mean...let's face reality...  If the software works on the
platform, it works on the platform.  Certification logos look great on a
website that sells heavily consumer-oriented, commodity software (WinZip,
Carbonite, Acronis, etc.).  Your software doesn't really fall into that
category, though.  It's specialised.  So what's the point of certification,
in reality?

If it has to do with getting an installer signed...that's a different
creature entirely.  WinXP complains about unsigned installers of certain
types, but has never once complained about my unsigned InnoSetup
installers.

I guess the question is, what's your goal in obtaining certification?

> BTW, I have been using Win7 since Jan and have found it nice.  I have 
> even stopped turning around to use my Unix keyboard and have left 
> AnzioWin sessions open in Win7.  It works great like that.  I have 
> almost all the tools I need.  I still have to connect a USB faxmodem for 
> faxing, but that was not urgent.

I'll drop XP when they officially EOL it.  Seeing as they have XP mode for
Windows 7, that tells me that there's still a need for XP, and EOL
shouldn't come anytime soon.  Even when they do EOL XP, it'll likely be EOL
for support/patches for the standalone distribution, not for the software
itself.  It'll probably be mostly a marketing/money decision, not a
technical reality, even if they enforce it.

I still put XP's EOL at 2017 or later, based on what happened with Win2K,
past policies, and the fact that just a year (two tops) ago they actually
released an entirely fresh pool of activation licenses for XP.  Which
means that we're likely looking at around 10yrs out from the last batch of
activation licenses before they entirely kill it.

Whether games and other applications will keep supporting XP is another
thing entirely.  There are a few games Microsoft released that are Vista or
higher only.  There's one non-MS game that requires Vista or higher.  I
don't personally know of any applications that won't support XP, but I can
only see that becoming an issue with things like Photoshop, or video
editing software.  Mostly what will be the driving criterion are two
things:  1) does the app/game need DirectX 10 or higher (most still fully
support 9.0c, which is the last for XP), and 2) does the vendor want to
spend money supporting a third platform.

For gaming, #1 is going to drive the question faster than #2, because those
that have DX10/11 want (demand, usually) that games use the features.  For
applications, it'll likely be #2 that drives the question more heavily.
That said, if you develop intelligently, there's nothing your garden
variety application can't do on XP that it can do on Vista or 7.  DX10/11
are pretty much the main things to watch out for, from what I can tell.

Which didn't stop ATI from dropping driver support for their cards five
years in advance of Win2K EOL.  And that didn't stop a lot of us from
dropping support for ATI in favour of NVidia--who still make Win95 versions
of their drivers.

A lot of this is marketing, money, and political, rather than technically
motivated.  Most of it can be dumped squarely back in Microsoft's lap,
too.  Though Microsoft would have you believe otherwise, DirectX 10 didn't
require Vista.  In fact, there's a project done by an outside group that
makes it work on XP.  The DX10 claim was spin to push their latest revenue
stream.  And it actually failed pretty miserably, considering the general
educated opinion of Vista.  A lot of us cling to XP yet.

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis,