Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations bkrike on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
.exe and Windows XP
- Thread starter Custer
- Start date
Custer,
Well, while I didn't have a setup developed under 98 handy, I did just try one created under NT 4.0, and it installed with no problems. Since there should be no difference in the setup program (it's an old 16-bit application after all), the only real difference, would be the .EXE itself. The only differences that I remember documented are that the version information is sometimes not stored in the .EXE header when compiled under Win 9x, and MS's answer is to compile it under NT / 2000 (/XP?) if that's critical to you. ( - "PRB: No Version Info if COM DLL/EXE Is Built Under Windows Me/98/95"
Rick
Well, while I didn't have a setup developed under 98 handy, I did just try one created under NT 4.0, and it installed with no problems. Since there should be no difference in the setup program (it's an old 16-bit application after all), the only real difference, would be the .EXE itself. The only differences that I remember documented are that the version information is sometimes not stored in the .EXE header when compiled under Win 9x, and MS's answer is to compile it under NT / 2000 (/XP?) if that's critical to you. ( - "PRB: No Version Info if COM DLL/EXE Is Built Under Windows Me/98/95"
Rick
- Status
Similar threads
