tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036198523690297182.post750725646246474626..comments2024-02-05T00:25:13.117-08:00Comments on waliedassar: Major / MinorSubsystemVersionwaliedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18278414703959705421noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036198523690297182.post-6796651859978365932014-11-04T09:07:52.926-08:002014-11-04T09:07:52.926-08:00The links to the example files are broken!The links to the example files are broken!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481166276537981110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036198523690297182.post-64399678810092391172012-08-09T13:48:24.609-07:002012-08-09T13:48:24.609-07:00Well, that is an interesting way to address the VC...Well, that is an interesting way to address the VC10 (VS2010) issue of W2K incompatibility ;). Myself, I build using the VC9 build tools from within VS2010 to maintain backwards compatibility. This is a simple option in the Project Settings (Build Toolset=VC9).<br /><br />While adjusting the subsystem version on the PE modules might be adequate, I preferred a solution I could be sure of, as the CRT itself may have W2K incompatibilities. If it does, this system wide patch may have consequences. If it doesn't, or has few, then maybe it has no consequences.<br /><br />The larger question might be - does anyone need Windows 2000? In evaluation of this question, I have actually decided to drop W2K at some point, and there be a 'last working build'. I may update it from time to time, but Microsoft has made it harder and harder to maintain compatibility. Once they drop it, they strongly encourage software vendors to do so as well. I plan to do this in VS2012, so I can finally switch to the latest MSVC build tools, with their presumably improved optimizations over VC9.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11336099339134840809noreply@blogger.com