Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: "Dunny" <paul.dunn4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:31:40 GMT
In news:6PEMf.1747$RM2.147816@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Bruce Roberts <dontsendtober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
"Dunny" <paul.dunn4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aBfMf.60325$mf2.40223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, that entirely depends upon what your target audience run,
doesn't it? Some of us still write software to be run on Win95 for
old 486s... CD drives are few and far between :-)
If you are writing for 10+ year old architecture surely you should be
using a contemporary development environemnt. IIRC that would mean D2
or D3.
I picked the latest version that would run on that hardware - up to v5, as I
refuse to go any higher. Happily, v5 runs just nicely on a 486 (it's on my
486 laptop here at home too). Stripped down (with all the useless databasing
and internet/networking components removed) it has a reasonably small
footprint and starts in just a few seconds - D5 starting up on a 486/50mhz
than D2k5 does on my P4/1.7ghz is quite amusing.
D.
.
- References:
- BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Ian
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Rob Kennedy
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Ian
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Bruce Roberts
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Dodgy
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: J French
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Dodgy
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: J French
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Maarten Wiltink
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Terry Russell
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Dunny
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Jamie
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Dunny
- Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- From: Bruce Roberts
- BDS2006 exe sizes
- Prev by Date: Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- Next by Date: Re: Compiler error on wrong line
- Previous by thread: Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- Next by thread: Re: BDS2006 exe sizes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|