Use tabs instead of dialogs for End of XP support message and other announcements

Bug #1315472 reported by Nick-V
18
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
DC++
Confirmed
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

The imposing message at startup that support is stopping for Microsoft and DC++ is an issue:

1) it cannot be switched off (as far as I can see) so is an unwelcome imposition after the first time

2) is incorrect...I'm using windows 2003 server and support is not ending just yet

Revision history for this message
eMTee (realprogger) wrote :

1) is not an imposition it's a serious security warning which meant to be as annoying as it is;
2) is incorrect but as W2k3 (or any other Windows Server version) has never been officially supported for DC++ it means there's no guarantee that DC++ works correctly on those OSes.

But due to the dialogs' blockage of the GUI at startup an annoucement TextFrame tabs would be a lot more useful instead of asynch dialogs, (actually for any kind of dialogs including the upgrade nag dialog).
If there's something to annouce it can be opened and focused during the tab restoration by the WindowManager, regardless of what was the last focused tab.

Changed in dcplusplus:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
summary: - End of XP support message
+ Use tabs instead of dialogs for End of XP support message and other
+ annoucements
Revision history for this message
Robert Rem (robe3) wrote : Re: Use tabs instead of dialogs for End of XP support message and other annoucements

How it is possible to relax it it XP the end of a support message?

Revision history for this message
Robert Rem (robe3) wrote :

Is now for me the 0.843 DC In a version and annoys!

Revision history for this message
Robert Rem (robe3) wrote :

Please take it out it XP the end of a support notification! :/

eMTee (realprogger)
summary: Use tabs instead of dialogs for End of XP support message and other
- annoucements
+ announcements
Revision history for this message
poy (poy) wrote :

regarding the GUI freeze - the solution on <https://bugs.launchpad.net/dcplusplus/+bug/300971/comments/4> would just have to be extended to dialogs (an MSGF_DIALOGBOX seems to exist).

Revision history for this message
Nick-V (nick-veit) wrote :

However it is resolved technically, it is not good design to force a user into any repetitive action that serves no useful purpose.

Once a user has been informed (and perhaps acknowledged this) they have the right to continue without being pestered.

30% or so are still using XP. Pestering is not going to achieve them buying new computers with new operating systems.

Revision history for this message
dood (mech-l) wrote :

I posted this on 12.4.

As it hasn't bee fixed, it's the usual: "We know better what's good for you then you do! We force you to do what we want!"

I don't like that attitude and I'm surprised they think that way, because I really learned to love DC++ over the years.

Revision history for this message
Fredrik Ullner (ullner) wrote :

Microsoft have dropped support for a system that is older than a decade. Go figure. Who knew that they (and we) would eventually drop support for a system...

If you aren't satisfied, provide a patch to provide a remedy to the situation (see poy's suggestions) or branch out your own version of DC++. (Or you know, get a system that isn't old and severely broken.)

In the end, it is the DC++ team's (the developers) decisions, time and effort that is the cause of good/bad things (per your perception). You are using a free program, don't treat its developers like we're dirt for not following every whim of individual users.

Revision history for this message
Nick-V (nick-veit) wrote :

What a defensive response to a suggestion that some users might be dissatisfied with an unnecessarily repetitive message.

I think a response that it could be programmed a different way giving users the option to switch it off would be more appropriate.

30% are still using XP whatever Microsoft has decided. And indeed, dropping support is not the issue...poor implementation of the message is the small and simple matter that is being raised.

Isn't it somewhat emotional to suggest that users should develop their own version of DC? Surely the developers are most interested in what users say, in general?

I hope the developers who put in much hard work do not feel they are being treated like dirt. Sorry you have an issue with this.

Revision history for this message
poy (poy) wrote :

misc reasons DC++ is dropping Windows XP support, and trying as hard as possible to have users switch:
- simplifies development: one less platform to test on; various XP-specific workarounds can be removed.
- more reliable bug reports: Microsoft is only providing security fixes for Windows XP, but that network card driver won't be updated and nothing stops it from leading DC++ into funky code paths and misleading crashes.
- health of the DC network.

for the moment a 0.840 branch of DC++ is going to be maintained (acknowleding the 30% of users) but like Windows XP, it will only receive the most critical fixes. that is added work for developers so it is in our interest to see that percentage lower.

regarding Windows Server 2003, it unfortunately shares the same code base as Windows XP so they are both being discarded at the same time.

Revision history for this message
dood (mech-l) wrote :

Don't get me wrong: Do as you please. But don't get into our working systems and destroy our work.

Just warn us next time before you use the killswitch so we can stick to the old versions.

"for the moment a 0.840 branch of DC++ is going to be maintained"
Sounds fair. As long as it's still working as before, I really appreciate it. But as said: I'd be happy running and old version with the security risks attached. As long as it gives me the old functionality and I can run it unattended.

Revision history for this message
poy (poy) wrote :

hello,

the next version is around the corner and it will drop support for Windows XP.

the 0.840 branch mentioned in comment #10 is no longer maintained and does not contain the latest security fixes.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.