[sword-devel] Wiki front end comparison

DM Smith dmsmith at crosswire.org
Mon Mar 2 17:46:06 MST 2009

On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:

> Chris Little wrote:
>> Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>>> The OS support I would simply do as previous - one row only, but  
>>> maybe
>>> with icons to make faster to read. Win95+ or WinXP+  is adequate  
>>> instead
>>> of a whole list of variants (unless newer Wins do not work).
>> This may seem a minor matter, but I'm not sure whether the current
>> division of 95/98/NT/Me vs. 2000/XP/Vista/7 is correct. If it  
>> really is
>> the case that front ends don't work on specifically the former set  
>> and
>> do work on the latter, then that's fine, but in my experience the  
>> split
>> is slightly different and is less a dichotomy than a gradient.
> I think in terms of other frontends they are simply not ever tested on
> anything older the Windows 2000. So the distinction, while technically
> not so meritorious is factually probably correct in so far as BibleCS
> and BD are the only ones who have been around long enough to be tested
> on the first group.


I have a Windows 98 laptop and a Windows 2000 desktop on which I test  
each release of Bible Desktop. Though I might not do it much longer.

-- DM

More information about the sword-devel mailing list