3 ms·
> Flash was only ever "cross platform" on Windows "Cross platform" to many meant Windows 98, XP, 2000 and NT5. You could work across that, you had the 'enterp
by mgkimsal 6y ago
> Flash was only ever "cross platform" on Windows
"Cross platform" to many meant Windows 98, XP, 2000 and NT5. You could work across that, you had the 'enterprise' market apps people using 2000 and NT which could then also be used by employees at home using Win XP. What more could you want?
I'm guess I'm being only half-sarcastic here.
- ryandrake 6y agoReminds me of a conversation with a coworker in around 1999: Me: “I wish [our product] was cross platform. It would be more enjoyable to develop.” Him (without a shred of sarcasm): “It IS cross platform! It runs on NT and 95!”
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago> It would be more enjoyable to develop In my experience, cross-platform is less enjoyable to develop. Yes, it might be more valuable to users for a program to be cross-platform, but it is definitely more enjoyable to develop something that just has to run on a single platform. For cross-platform work, you have to use languages, runtimes, and libraries that are supported across multiple platforms. When you are doing single platform work, you can use all the cross-platform languages and libraries and tools, plus all the other languages, libraries and tools that are on the single platform. I suspect the difference was even more stark in 1999 because Windows was even more dominant than it is now.
- mgkimsal 6y agoIt might be 'more enjoyable' to develop, but certainly not to test, which... for many people, seems to be something wholly separate from 'development'.
- mkr-hn 6y agoThat was how Microsoft put it, too.