Total Commander

I suggest adding a setting that allows you to automatically select the appropriate plugin version given the resulting limitations for older OS versions.
For example, this can be done if the plugin files of the same name from previous versions are placed, for example, in a subdirectory of the maximum version for compatibility ("XP" or "5.1", for example), where the corresponding version will be searched first.

For example: But for now, you have to create an environment variable with \<subdir> in Autorun and duplicate the lng file.

Can you give an example where this would be beneficial?

This is a strange question, considering that an example has already been given.

Yes, an example is there, but how would this be beneficial exactly? What would that suggestion make possible that currently isn't?

PS and JFTR: jpg-comment 2.4.1 runs fine under XP (but 2.4.0 doesn't).

Dalai wrote: 2025-03-21, 11:01 UTCjpg-comment 2.4.1 runs fine under XP

Confirm. I didn't know that the plugin was updated 4 days ago. There was no announcement in the topic, and nothing was said about restoring support for older OS.

Well, let it be sftpplug.wfx or Imagine.wlx with a crooked settings dialog on XP. There are some wdx that don't return data.

2Dalai

but how would this be beneficial exactly?

I guess if you have TC installed on an USB-stick and use it with several OS's.

What should the nomenclature be the for the OS version? XP or 5.1 or NT5.1 - 10 or NT10.0 or 10 10 22H2 or 10.0.19045.5608 etc. ?

petermad wrote: 2025-03-21, 15:56 UTC I guess if you have TC installed on an USB-stick and use it with several OS's.

This is what portability is for. It can be not only USB (eSATA, FireWire).

petermad wrote: 2025-03-21, 15:56 UTC XP or 5.1 or NT5.1 - 10 or NT10.0 or 10 10 22H2 or 10.0.19045.5608 etc. ?

The numbers are easier to compare, so the names 5.1, 10.0, etc. were easier for the author.

Fla$her wrote: 2025-03-21, 23:58 UTCThe numbers are easier to compare, so the names 5.1, 10.0, etc. were easier for the author.

How does one differentiate the various Win10 releases or Win10 from Win11 if the need arises? I'm sure you're aware that MS has been using the exact same major and minor version number for Windows for nearly 10 years now, which is bullshit in its own right, but that's what we're dealing with.

Dalai wrote: 2025-03-22, 09:49 UTC if the need arises

Such a probability tends to zero, in my opinion.

Well, as with most things: You don't need it until you do.

Win10 from Win11

I may have misunderstood you. But where do you see the problem of the indistinguishability of 10 from 11?

Well, newer Windows releases/versions might provide new (Win32) API functions that aren't available (or behave differently) in older Windows versions. That's what this suggestion is about, is it not?

Dalai wrote: 2025-03-23, 10:06 UTC That's what this suggestion is about, is it not?

Sure. But that doesn't answer my question.

I thought this to be clear. Let me try again. Let's assume that a new plugin version uses a certain API provided by Windows 11 that isn't available on Windows 10. Note that this is just an example; it could be Windows 12 (of that's ever released) instead. Based on your suggestion to use the major and minor version numbers, there's no way to differentiate Win10 from Win11, and thus no way to place different plugin versions in different directories.

The rabbit hole can go really deep which is why MS has been discouraging programmers from determining and using the Windows version number for many years now (since Win8.1). That decision has its own flaws, but I digress.

I hope that makes it clear and answers the question.

Dalai wrote: 2025-03-23, 10:38 UTC Based on your suggestion to use the major and minor version numbers, there's no way to differentiate Win10 from Win11

I checked the erroneous data from one article, it said 11 instead of 10.
Then my suggestion is to take not the actual numbers, but the aligned ones. For example, Ver >= 10.0.2 would be equivalent to 11.