Imaging program that works with XP but not 2K

[fotoflo]

I would like to know what the specific differences are between XP and 2K when working with programs and why a program would work well with XP but not 2K. Windows 2000 is a current valid OS that costs as much as XP, so, every program that works on XP should work on 2K and vice versa, yes? Apparently not. I use 2KPro SP4. What parts of 2K and XP are different in terms of memory useage, file handling, resource allotment, etc? I am using an imaging program that is not guarenteed to run well on 2K, just XP. I have a very fast computer, all the hardware necessary to do just about anything. But the program crashes when loading images, it gets to about 80 (out of 400) images and then I get a standard windows error. I have tried loading only 50 images at a time, but when I got to the second batch of 50 images, it crashed when i got to 20-30 images, the same amount as when i tried loading them all at the same time. Tech support with them is not really an option since they specifically say they will not support 2K, only XP. I guess if they dont know how to make it work in 2K then they cant tell me how to fix my problem, other than upgrade to XP. This question is directed at Chris Breeze since he knows this stuff backwards but if anyone else has suggestions or helpfull information that would be great.

There's are reasons why Microsoft still makes 2K, I'd like to know what they are.

Roger

[Chris Breeze]

Roger, I'm sorry I can't comment on why some other company's app may or may not work on Windows 2000. I haven't used Windows 2000 seriously for nearly four years and currently use Windows XP Pro for software development. Each release of my software is tested on Windows 2000 and as far as I'm aware there are no problems running it on Windows 2000. Occasionally I have had to rewrite some sections of code to avoid using Windows calls that aren't available on older versions of Windows, but broadly speaking what runs on Windows XP also runs on Windows 2000 and Windows 98.

[keff]

Roger,

As a software developer myself, I don't know what the specific differences are, although I could find out if I wanted to. However, it is perfectly reasonable that a program will work on XP and not 2K. Normally, M$ will invest a lot of resources to make a new OS backwards compatible. What this means is the new OS will support apps that run on old OSs. However, what you would want is forwards compatibility, and that ain't going to happen. You just can not maintain both forwards and backwards compatibility, it makes no sense. You can have one, but not the other, and backwards compatibilty makes more sense.

It would appear that the developer of your product has made a commercial or technical decision to support XP and not 2K. There are a number of perfectly valid reasons why they might have done this. One is increased support costs. Supporting two OSs costs more than one. Things like sw testing will more than double in cost, training support staff etc., etc. Unless you can bodge it, you are going to have to ditch it, or use XP.

Steve

[fotoflo]

I have the program working in a way that makes it useable. I did some tests and it looks like there is a quantity limit using a combination of number of images and image size. If I resize the images to 1500 pixels, then I can load 1300 files but at full size it doesnt work, understandable since 1300 images at full size is about 5G of space. So far the total size of images it can handle is somewhere betwen 800mb - 1.5 GB, depending on the amount of images and their size. Thanks for your input.

Roger