Death to win9x?

[James Mckenzie]

Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:00 PM, K.King <k.king177 at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> <<<
>> That's not useful. The whole point is that we don't want to spend the
>> effort required to keep the tests error-free on platforms that we don't
>> care about. That makes it easier to write tests for platforms that
>> actually matter, which is a more productive use of everybody's time.
>>>>>
>> You may not care, but I know a number of people who do.
>> For some running the older software is more important, of interest, or use.
>
>A majority of that effort is rewriting tests to make win9x happy, not
>rewriting behavior to fix win9x applications.
>
>Few people (if any) want to intentionally break win9x applications,
>but spending a large amount of developer effort to maintain the tests
>there isn't really the best investment, when it could instead be spent
>fixing real bugs.
>
This I do agree with.  I'm working on tests for richedit and the expected reaction of the Win9x version is much different than the reaction of the WindowsXP version.

I could drop the Win9x tests and concentrate on Windows 2000 and higher.  Would this be a good course of action?

James McKenzie