File: urlviewer on win3.11.png (168 KB, 1920x1080)

168 KB PNG

Also with enough effort even Windows 3.11 support isn't a problem.

Windows 95 lost almost all hardware support by like 2000. There's nothing running Windows 95 on metal that could run any modern intense programs. It's like trying to port Boeing 737 software to a Ford Focus, even if you could get it to work what's the point?

>>108894403
I was using the ease of porting stuff to Windows 95 as an example, I was asking why are people willing to support ONLY Windows 10/11.

>>108894415
Because developers are lazy, jeeted, and rely on libraries.

>>108894369 (OP)
Its not so simple. The windows api has holes, missing functionality. Each version of windows they drip feed a handful of useful features that are impossible to implement yourself. As such once a programmer gets used to these new features, the architecture of their applications grows around said new features and there is basically no way to port the application back, not without massive reworking.

And you might accuse programmers of being lazy. But its not. Programmers don't comprehend how they lived without these features, and have no idea how to implement the same functionality without them.

>>108894369 (OP)
it's easy only if you own the entire stack, down to language runtime. once a single component requires a higher version of windows, you're cooked.

but then of course on the other side there is stuff like python, which is trivially patched to work on windows 7 but they refuse to do it.

>>108894415
>why is software targetting only the OS that people use
it’s a mystery

>>108894415
you were given a very good reason, thoughbeit
people aren't making a decision to not support older windows versions, they're just making software for the operating system they use with the tools that are available to them
you're not using those operating systems either. you messed around with a toy application and got it to run in operating systems no one is actually using and got the autistic compulsion to come to 4chan to yell to the void that "people" are lazy. does that make you feel better about your shitty life, anon?

That's not how it works. The program has to be written at some point against windows APIs. Windows APIs have changed over time. If you're programming against win95 APIs, they will hardly work on win10+. If you programmed against the win10 APIs, you'll have to rewrite for win95. Furthermore, many software relies on bullshit nowadays (e.g. electron) which isn't going to work without rewriting the whole thing yourself. Think also about things like dx version support.

>>108894942
There are multiple problems with your answer:
People still use Windows 7, and it's support was deliberately cut, despite that.
>people aren't making a decision to not support older windows versions, they're just making software for the operating system they use with the tools that are available to them
All tools are available to them, yet they still only target Windows 10+.
>you're not using those operating systems either
I have a computer so old it has a floppy drive cutout in it's case.
>you messed around with a toy application and got it to run in operating systems no one is actually using
So, why can't they do it with a slightly bigger application, especially given their resources?

>>108895004
>backwards compatibility is something microsoft actually does well,
My fucking sides