<< MiKTeX 2.7 status | Package download broken >>

No MiKTeX 2.7 for Windows 9x/Me/NT

Thursday, 23 August 2007 09:54 by CSchenk

Sad but true: It is not likely that MiKTeX 2.7 works on legacy Windows systems (9x/Me/NT). It seems that the new build system, Visual Studio 2008, does not support legacy targets.

Currently rated 3.0 by 9 people

Currently 3/5 Stars.
1
2
3
4
5

Tags:		miktex 2.7, windows 9x/me/nt, visual studio 2008
Categories:		MiKTeX Development
Actions:		E-mail \| Permalink \| Comments (26) \| Comment RSS

MiKTeX 2.5 and Windows VistaMiKTeX 2.6/2.7 end-of-life declarationMiKTeX on Windows 95

Comments

August 24. 2007 20:04

What about Windows 2000? I am still using it ...

Groz

August 25. 2007 01:15

Windows 2000 is OK. Here is the list of the supported platforms:

Windows Vista

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 2000

CSchenk

October 29. 2007 03:09

What about using Code::Blocks as the MikTeX build system? That way it can support MinGW, MSVC 2003 (which supports legacy build targets), etc.

King InuYasha

October 29. 2007 04:08

What about using C::B as the MikTeX build system? That way it can support MinGW, MSVC 2003 (which supports legacy build targets), etc.

King InuYasha

October 29. 2007 04:48

MiKTeX already uses the best build system in the world: CMake.
Don't confuse build system (CMake, autotools, Visual Studio, ...) with compiler (Visual C++, G++, ...). Switching the build system gains nothing, because I am tied to the latest incarnation of Visual C++ at the moment.

CSchenk

November 22. 2007 04:50

Just curious. Since there are multiple decent C/C++ command-line compilers available for free for Windows (including Visual C++ v14!), what is it that has you tied to a specific version of a specific vendor's compiler?

Seems ironic to have a large body of software ported all the way from *nix to Windows, only to end up highly non-portable within the Windows platform .

RonBurk

November 22. 2007 05:18

The MiKTeX GUI applications depend on the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) and MFC requires Microsoft Visual C++. You can remove these applications from the distribution and compile the rest for Linux. But who needs yet another TeX distribution for Linux?

CSchenk

December 17. 2007 05:50

Well, if the MFC is what is required, then couldn't it be built in MinGW? AFAIK, MinGW does support building MFC binaries. Also, I think it is possible to nearly painlessly port MFC sources to wxWidgets. wx and MFC do share a similar design system after all....

King InuYasha

December 17. 2007 12:38

Thank you for the advice. But:

I doubt that MinGW includes MFS libraries/headers.

The Visual C++ compiler is free (in the sense of "for nothing"), i.e., MinGW currently offers no adantage.

We all know know that it is possible to port the GUI applications to another toolkit (wxWidgets, Qt).

CSchenk

January 13. 2008 07:16

MikTeX isn't the only great software to fall into the pit of relying upon core components of an OS. Sooner or later it dooms the software or causes the loss of its users. I have enjoyed the use of MikTeX and TeXnicCenter for years. But, I will not buy a new operating system just to continue using it.

LongTerm User

January 15. 2008 12:17

Want to state my support for the opinion of LongTermUser....
Its a shame that such great software will drop support because of the installer only!
Because TeXnicCenter and the installed MikTex components itself are running well under win9x systems...

So, please change this this Visual Studio 2008 build environment back to VC6!

Disagree

January 16. 2008 21:42

There is no way back. Say good bye to Windows 9x/Me/NT or install one of: MiKTeX 2.6, TeX Live 200x, teTeX (for Cygwin). Good luck!

CSchenk

January 25. 2008 10:54

I do not blame you(Christian.).
But, this is a sad state of affairs.
New OS most probably means a new computer.
Therefore, you have to junk your old computer.
I guess this is how a lot of electronic waste is
generated.

S. Venkataraman

February 6. 2008 09:07

How old and poor are you guys? Do you really still need to run Win 9x and NT? Please don't bother people with those last century problems. Win XP runs perfectly on the cheapest computers on the market. Go get it as long as it is still available... And if money really is the problem, then Linux might be the alternative.

Texnocrate

February 18. 2008 08:11

Texnocrate, you couldn't miss the point more.

I am using a PC which I bought used in 2004, it's probably from around 2001 or so. (Pentium III, 730 MHz.) It's way more than adequate for running LaTeX on it, and most other things that I might want to do. I am running XP on it, but presumably in a few years' time, Visual C++ will stop supporting XP as well. I will probably have gotten a new computer by then for other reasons, but buying a new computer just so that I can do things which I was able to do perfectly adequately on my previous one doesn't seem very sensible.

There is a trend for software to have ever higher hardware requirements, without actually accomplishing significantly more computation-intensive tasks than previous versions. (Of course there are notable exceptions, e.g. games, graphics etc.)

It is one reason why it isn't a good decision to go with software - particularly if it's proprietary - such as Visual C++ which relies on the specific operating system used. MiKTeX is a lot of work anyway, and I am sure no-one expects things to be turned back now.

I just wanted to say that this is very much a valid point to make.

February 19. 2008 07:33

avery lee, the programmer of the (very well) known video-edit&capture program virtualDub decided AGAINST switching VS2008 for that reason...
so, there is always an option and an alternative, it's to easy to say 'there is a trend set by the majority, so no one can resist' ... if that would be true opensource and linux would be already dead. :/

www.virtualdub.org/.../entry.php?id=185#body

disagree

February 19. 2008 16:26

A short reminder: MiKTeX 2.6 is still available. This version runs on legacy Windows systems. So please stop moaning. Take it as it is.

CSchenk

June 17. 2008 16:04

Just a bad decision, sad.

PenguinUK

June 18. 2008 04:09

Just a bad decision, sad.

You could always ask for your money back. It's 2008. Abandoning support for old operating systems is the way of the world. Adapt and overcome.

TimmyT

June 29. 2008 17:40

A lot of decisions go into choosing a development environment--not the least of which is ease of debugging. The command-line GCC++ compiler is fine, for example, but the debugging environment/IDE (where you spend most of your time developing) is primitive compared to VS. Naturally MS makes it easy to use MFC, and it's a pain to try to use other windowing environments, not because MS goes to any trouble to make them harder, but they--naturally--invest zero effort into supporting them. (Why should they?)

Perhaps by using a less efficient development environment, or by using a different windowing library (a decision that really has to be made at the BEGINNING--something that is AGONY to change later)--if it weren't for choosing the most efficient environment/easiest windowing library at hand, we might not have MikTex AT ALL. Or it would have a lot less features.

I'm grateful that we have a product as good as it is. Their choices about development environment could easily represent a fairly optimal tradeoff maximizing the most benefits to the most users the soonest.

william

September 19. 2008 19:02

Perhaps by using a less efficient development environment, or by using a different windowing library (a decision that really has to be made at the BEGINNING--something that is AGONY to change later)--if it weren't for choosing the most efficient environment/easiest windowing library at hand, we might not have MikTex AT ALL. Or it would have a lot less features.

laptop cases

September 23. 2008 03:18

First, a *BIG THANK YOU* to the developers of MiKTeX, which I understand powers the powerful and simple LyX editor under Windows. Love it!

Second, to all those who desire legacy OS support: The situation you find yourself in is based on your selection of a proprietary OS that had to be *purchased*. It was a necessary evil that we all got locked into back in the late '90s and early 2000's. However, there is no need to continue to cling to an outdated proprietary OS when alternatives like Ubuntu exist. Ubuntu is fast, free, and includes easily installable packages through its Synaptic Package Manager that will provide any application you might need. LyX (or anything else you want) can be installed in a matter of a few clicks.

I cannot imagine being forced to trade Ubuntu for Win95, Win98, or some other outdated junk OS -- and then needing to pay for it! TeX and all the other software MiKTeX incorporates was developed in the same manner as Linux and other open source software -- if you trust using it for document creation, why not try an operating system that was designed with the same goals in mind? You will likely be surprised at how great it is.

photo enlargements

September 25. 2008 01:05

Are you guys seriously complaining about the lack of support for Windows 9x/ME/NT4 in the year 2008? These os's are about 10 years old, and as CSchenk also said there is still MiKTeX 2.6 available for them, only not the LATEST version.

User2

December 27. 2008 11:12