0003601: 0.31.17 breaks compatibility with Windows XP SP1

(0013892)
Footkerchief (manager)
2010-11-15 14:02

I guess this means my creaky old OS isn't supported anymore, is that right?

XP is definitely supported. Have you tried upgrading to SP3 or at least SP2?

(0013904)
Quietust (reporter)
2010-11-15 17:11

Were you able to run version 0.31.13 on XP SP1?

(0014028)
ManaUser (reporter)
2010-11-19 15:01

Footkerchief, No. (I would have a long time ago if it were that simple.) I'm assuming that's the problem though.

Quietust, no, .12 is apparently the last version that works on my computer.

(0014029)
Quietust (reporter)
2010-11-19 15:05

If 0.31.12 is the last version used on your system, then this is due to Toady switching to Visual C++ 2010. You'll have to upgrade to XP SP2 or later (and you really should do so).

(0014353)
ManaUser (reporter)
2010-12-01 16:46

No, I shouldn't. It's pretty sad that Microsoft has run out of actual improvements to make and stoops to deliberately breaking things to badger people into "upgrading".

(0014354)
twilighdusk (reporter)
2010-12-01 17:06
edited on: 2010-12-01 19:07

Don't the service packs fix security loopholes though? The kinds of things hackers exploit to get control of your computer? That's not an improvement?

And it's not so much breaking things so much as feeling it's not worth the effort to make sure something's backwards compatible past a certain extent. After all, it's a very small portion of the userbase that's still using XP SP1, and keeping that small portion happy is not with the extra time and money involved in programing something to make sure it's compatible that far back.

In addition, it's not Microsoft calling the shots on this. It's the choice of the person/company programming a given application how far back to make it compatible. Microsoft doesn't go around breaking knees and forcing programmers to make things incompatible with older systems, the older systems are genuinely different enough that it's not worth the effort to make sure a program is compatible with them.

(0014359)
Logical2u (manager)
2010-12-01 21:49

This is just a comment, but I don't really want to see a discussion here of all places regarding Microsoft. Would you both (twilighdusk, manauser) consider taking this discussion somewhere else? Thanks.

ManaUser, Quietust has provided a possible explanation for your concerns. Have you had any luck in updating Visual C++ (or generally your C++ libraries) and seeing if that resolves your problem?

(0014361)
Quietust (reporter)
2010-12-02 06:25

Updating C++ libraries on the client system won't do anything at all, since the "problem" is entirely within the executable itself as produced on Toady's system.

(0014445)
Nivm (reporter)
2010-12-07 17:45

The 0.31.12 version also works on Win 2000, which is kinda nice when I don't have access to anything newer. Since no one contradicted Quietust, I assume there's no way for me to get this old system to recognize DF 0.31.18 as a "valid application"?

(0019846)
Footkerchief (manager)
2012-02-16 14:19

Yeah, you'll have to upgrade.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2010-11-13 21:58	ManaUser	New Issue
2010-11-15 14:02	Footkerchief	Note Added: 0013892
2010-11-15 16:58	Footkerchief	Summary	Game won't start. ("DecodePointer" error.) => 0.31.17 breaks compatibility with Windows XP SP1
2010-11-15 17:11	Quietust	Note Added: 0013904
2010-11-19 15:01	ManaUser	Note Added: 0014028
2010-11-19 15:05	Quietust	Note Added: 0014029
2010-12-01 16:46	ManaUser	Note Added: 0014353
2010-12-01 17:06	twilighdusk	Note Added: 0014354
2010-12-01 19:03	twilighdusk	Note Edited: 0014354	View Revisions
2010-12-01 19:06	twilighdusk	Note Edited: 0014354	View Revisions
2010-12-01 19:07	twilighdusk	Note Edited: 0014354	View Revisions
2010-12-01 21:49	Logical2u	Note Added: 0014359
2010-12-02 06:25	Quietust	Note Added: 0014361
2010-12-02 08:01	Footkerchief	Tag Attached: Intentional/Expected?
2010-12-07 17:45	Nivm	Note Added: 0014445
2012-02-16 14:19	Footkerchief	Note Added: 0019846
2012-02-16 14:19	Footkerchief	Status	new => resolved
2012-02-16 14:19	Footkerchief	Resolution	open => won't fix
2012-02-16 14:19	Footkerchief	Assigned To	=> Footkerchief
2012-02-16 14:20	Footkerchief	Relationship added	related to 0005193
2012-02-16 14:23	Footkerchief	Tag Detached: Intentional/Expected?

Notes
(0013892) Footkerchief (manager) 2010-11-15 14:02	I guess this means my creaky old OS isn't supported anymore, is that right? XP is definitely supported. Have you tried upgrading to SP3 or at least SP2?

(0013904) Quietust (reporter) 2010-11-15 17:11	Were you able to run version 0.31.13 on XP SP1?

(0014028) ManaUser (reporter) 2010-11-19 15:01	Footkerchief, No. (I would have a long time ago if it were that simple.) I'm assuming that's the problem though. Quietust, no, .12 is apparently the last version that works on my computer.

(0014029) Quietust (reporter) 2010-11-19 15:05	If 0.31.12 is the last version used on your system, then this is due to Toady switching to Visual C++ 2010. You'll have to upgrade to XP SP2 or later (and you really should do so).

(0014353) ManaUser (reporter) 2010-12-01 16:46	No, I shouldn't. It's pretty sad that Microsoft has run out of actual improvements to make and stoops to deliberately breaking things to badger people into "upgrading".

(0014354) twilighdusk (reporter) 2010-12-01 17:06 edited on: 2010-12-01 19:07	Don't the service packs fix security loopholes though? The kinds of things hackers exploit to get control of your computer? That's not an improvement? And it's not so much breaking things so much as feeling it's not worth the effort to make sure something's backwards compatible past a certain extent. After all, it's a very small portion of the userbase that's still using XP SP1, and keeping that small portion happy is not with the extra time and money involved in programing something to make sure it's compatible that far back. In addition, it's not Microsoft calling the shots on this. It's the choice of the person/company programming a given application how far back to make it compatible. Microsoft doesn't go around breaking knees and forcing programmers to make things incompatible with older systems, the older systems are genuinely different enough that it's not worth the effort to make sure a program is compatible with them.

(0014359) Logical2u (manager) 2010-12-01 21:49	This is just a comment, but I don't really want to see a discussion here of all places regarding Microsoft. Would you both (twilighdusk, manauser) consider taking this discussion somewhere else? Thanks. ManaUser, Quietust has provided a possible explanation for your concerns. Have you had any luck in updating Visual C++ (or generally your C++ libraries) and seeing if that resolves your problem?

(0014361) Quietust (reporter) 2010-12-02 06:25	Updating C++ libraries on the client system won't do anything at all, since the "problem" is entirely within the executable itself as produced on Toady's system.

(0014445) Nivm (reporter) 2010-12-07 17:45	The 0.31.12 version also works on Win 2000, which is kinda nice when I don't have access to anything newer. Since no one contradicted Quietust, I assume there's no way for me to get this old system to recognize DF 0.31.18 as a "valid application"?

(0019846) Footkerchief (manager) 2012-02-16 14:19	Yeah, you'll have to upgrade.