On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Wols Lists <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/08/14 12:55, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> What compelling reason is there to run the lastest version of a >> software on such old architecture ? and even more to the point, what >> compelling reason is there to slow down everybody else for that. > > Maybe there's still a reasonable number of such systems about? It was a > pretty decent XP system. I only retired my K7 thunderbird about a year > ago, because I was given a newer "ancient" system to replace it.
I'm not sure how many systems of this era are still in use -- anyone know where we could get some data? Maybe some other FOSS project like Mozilla has some data? Maniaxx -- Did this problem start with LO 4.3? (I believe that we switched to Visual Studio 2012 by LO 4.0 or 4.1) > (Or is it a lot of effort to maintain a SSE build for old systems on the > website? I'm not offering ...) Building on Windows is a bit more painful than building on GNU/Linux, however if someone really wanted a one-off build, I guess that they could follow the instructions https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Windows_Build_Dependencies > I know we can't keep supporting old stuff for ever, but I've got 80s-era > software I would still like to run, In general, 80s-era software (or older) should either be updated to run on modern machines or be run in a VM. > and I know of people who can't > afford to replace aging computers... I'm quite sympathetic to those who can't afford to upgrade their existing hardware. If someone can get some hard data that there's a non-trivial percentage of our users (or potential users) who are not able to use our software, and who *could* run our software if we just changed a compile-time flag, then I think we should give the matter further consideration. Best, --R _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
