What Version of Windows Are You Syncing With?

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/07/cx_ld_0107upgrade.html">http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/07/cx_ld_0107upgrade.html</a><br /><br />The computer industry may be ready for a big year in 2003. Microsoft will be dropping all support for Windows 98 and Windows NT 4, meaning corporations and users that want to at least continue to get some security fixes and be able to buy software they can use, they will have to move to Windows 2000 or Windows XP. <i>(Some of you may be thinking, what about Windows ME, but I am trying to be serious here.)</i> You can see on <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.mspx">Microsoft's Windows Lifecycle page</a> the various planned life spans of all Windows versions. Once a product enters "Non-Supported Phase" MS and many developers pretty much quit testing that OS for compatibility. I have a laundry list of Microsoft and non-Microsoft apps I've purchased over the last 18 months that didn't support Windows 95.<br /><br />Which brings us to Pocket PCs. When Microsoft wrote ActiveSync 3.5, Windows 95 was entering the non-supported phase of its life cycle, and as a result, Microsoft didn't spend one minute even trying to make AS 3.5 work. With limited resources, the Mobile Device group has to prioritize, and supporting an OS that parent Microsoft is in the process of killing is wasted effort. At some point, there will be an ActiveSync 3.7 or 4.0 or whatever they call it. With Windows 98 and NT 4 entering this non-supported phase, do you think the Mobile Device group will spend any effort supporting it? It may work, but if it doesn't, I'd imagine there will be a shrug, someone will say "oh well" and move on. :D I can't really blame them. If MS fixed the top 10 issues I have with ActiveSync today, Windows 95 compatibility would be number 48 or so. I'll actually be glad to see all of the OS's with 16 bit code die. Think how much time they will waste on Windows ME compatibility. Yuck. You wouldn't believe how much code in Office XP installs depending on a Win9x based OS or a WinNT based OS.<br /><br />I'm curious, what OS are you syncing your Pocket PC with? Will you move from Windows 98 to Windows XP if the next generation iPAQ/Axim/Whatever doesn't support your OS?

[ux4484]

XP and 2000

2000's been great since SP2.

It's not surprising as auto update support was all but killed for 95 a while back.

[Janak Parekh]

Wow, we have a ton of XP users here :eek:

BTW, the biggest ramification of end-of-life of a Microsoft OS is the turning off of the corresponding Windows Update site, and the fact that MS releases no new patches. It is a very effective mechanism -- companies still using Windows 95 are very vulnerable if they're connected to the Internet now (unless they're using only Netscape/Mozilla and turn off all attachments :))

NT4/98 is going to be the most painful of all the MS OS retirements, as many companies are still using them. I have one customer who is still about 30% NT4, including half of their servers. They're going to have a massive migration happening soon, but I'm debating whether to wait until .NET Server comes out or just push them to Win2k Server.

--janak

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I'm surprised how many people are using XP (70% users at this time with 20% going to 2000). I just recently upgraded my desktop to XP, and that was only after my main HD crashed on what was previously 98SE. I still had thought I was ahead of the curve.

Given that the majority uses either 2000 or XP, I wouldn't think it's that big of a deal... I personally wouldn't care if they decided to only support 2000 and beyond... but I do beg of MS to please upgrade ActiveSync to something far more flexible, predictable, and stable.

[DrtyBlvd]

Wow, we have a ton of XP users here :eek:

Wow you ain't kidding! Now that is a surprise! Not sure why, but I would have expected a few more 2k-er's and 98'2 to say the least!

Guess it's a good sign of sorts huh?

[DrtyBlvd]

Shame you didn't include 95 in the poll in a way :twisted:

[jk]

Wow a lot of people are on XP! I guess it is time I upgrade my home pc. I am using windows ME no less! How horrible is that? I guess it is just I really need to back up my stuff and haven't done so yet.

[dannyoneill]

didnt think i would like XP but I really do. deffinatly a refined OS. Windows ME though, my god how awful was that. It has a total feel of "we need to get somthing out there, we need some more money, lets repackage 95"

[Jason Dunn]

I'm actually surprised that the % of XP users isn't HIGHER. 8O I mean, come on, it's been our for over a year now right? :D I can't stand not having the newest version of whatever it is I'm using, although I'm not sure how excited I'll be about upgrading to Office XP 2.0 (or whatever it will be called)....

[vincentsiaw]

hei so far, so little mac user surprisingly....

[Brad Adrian]

...I guess it is time I upgrade my home pc. I am using windows ME no less! How horrible is that?
Honestly, IMO, the greatest difference you will see with XP is improved networking. If you have more than one PC, this is the version for you, because it makes setting up a home network SOOOOO easy (even I could do it).

[icatar]

I'd be interested to see the home/office splits as well, since most offices would still be on Windows 2000 and most homes would (presumably) be on XP.

[Ed Hansberry]

Shame you didn't include 95 in the poll in a way :twisted:
I did. First option.

[Numsquat]

I'd be interested to see the home/office splits as well, since most offices would still be on Windows 2000 and most homes would (presumably) be on XP.

Not here, 98 at work and 98&2000 at home, although the 98 at home will be replaced at some time this year for a new computer w/XP.

[cyclwestks]

Actually we are using 98 at work, because of some proprietary driver problems, but at home I have an XP & XP pro machine. The move away from 98 will cause us to seriously think about doing some upgrading at work.

[jweitzman]

Interesting poll, but keep in mind that it shows nearly 70% of *us* use Windoze XP. We are (no offense intended) not normal.

With the price of PocketPCs coming down, more and more consumers will be choosing them over Palm devices. Many of those consumers are happily running older operating systems at home. A large chunk of the consumer population never upgrades anything if it is working the same way it always has.

At my last job we acquired a company that pre-loaded ad-supported browsers on new computers. We were still seeing tens of millions of impressions a month from the first version, which was Internet Explorer 3.x, just last year!

JW

[SofaTater]

Too bad there wasn't an option for "more than one" -- I synch with my home desktop, which runs 98, and with my work laptop, which runs 2000.

Hoping to dump that old 98 desktop in a few months for a nice new XP machine.

[jk]

Interesting poll, but keep in mind that it shows nearly 70% of *us* use Windoze XP. We are (no offense intended) not normal.

With the price of PocketPCs coming down, more and more consumers will be choosing them over Palm devices. Many of those consumers are happily running older operating systems at home. A large chunk of the consumer population never upgrades anything if it is working the same way it always has.

At my last job we acquired a company that pre-loaded ad-supported browsers on new computers. We were still seeing tens of millions of impressions a month from the first version, which was Internet Explorer 3.x, just last year!

JW

I would have to agree...most of us are probably more tech savvy and crave the new over the old. I would say a lot of people stick with what works. Windows ME however is aboustely pitiful and worse than 98SE by far. I almost wish my new pc came with 98SE instead of ME when I bought it. With all this talk I seriously need to put XP on my home machine.

[don dre]

I like to think of the pre XP days with 98 and 95 as dark, dreary days when I almost switched to Linux. Since moving to XP everything has been STABLE. My additions to my PC almost always work at boot up, ot simply by downloading a driver. I hated the cartooney inteface at first but I've grown accustomed to it. Like Dostoyevsky says, human beings are capable of getting used to almost anything. Plus my activesync issues have been minmal since upgrading.

[Numsquat]

Many of those consumers are happily running older operating systems at home. A large chunk of the consumer population never upgrades anything if it is working the same way it always has.

Most, like myself, don't upgrade unless they buy a new computer w/the newer OS.

[Jason Dunn]

Most, like myself, don't upgrade unless they buy a new computer w/the newer OS.

Wow... 8O I slap XP on anything with a hard drive! :lol: But I realize that most consumers are like yourself - computers are appliances, and you get a new OS when you get a new computer. Makes sense, althought the computing experience is so much better with XP - I've installed it on most of my relative's computers, and they really enjoy using it.

[Ed Hansberry]

I am surprised no one in this group has picked the Windows .NET server option. I figured out of the 500 votes so far, someone would be using that.

[Jonathan1]

Come on guy. Is this really that surprising? 2K was never standard on the desktop. (At least for consumer PC’s) 9x was. Now that XP has killed 9x its to be expected since every PC that OEM ships is XP not 2K or 9x.
*shrugs* I’m happy with my dual boot solution between Red Hat 8 and Windows 2000. When MS drops 2K I guess I’m done with Windows. *shrugs* unless palidum (How the bloody heck do you spell it again?!) and product activation flop. :evil: I don't like big brother Gates playing in my computer and from the looks of it that is where Windows is heading. *shrugs* Fine by me. Since I’m starting to migrate off of Windows.

[Janak Parekh]

I am surprised no one in this group has picked the Windows .NET server option. I figured out of the 500 votes so far, someone would be using that.
We're using .NET server here, but I don't use that machine to view PPCT :D

palidum (How the bloody heck do you spell it again?!)
Palladium (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/news/PallFAQ2.asp) (btw, that's an interesting technical FAQ on the topic by Microsoft... they're not totally unaware of the criticism, you know ;))

--janak

[Jonathon Watkins]

Agreed - XP is the way to go - it's really Windows 2000 version 1.1 though - but still nice.

[rlobrecht]

I chose 2000 in the poll because that's what I use at work (and do most of my synching) but my home machine is XP Pro, and I synch with that as well.

[Weyoun6]

.... Unless like on my laptop, where xp slows it down to a crawl. Sigh.

[Janak Parekh]

.... Unless like on my laptop, where xp slows it down to a crawl. Sigh.
Give it more RAM. I had 128 on my laptop with XP, and it's not a choice if you run more than one application. With 256MB it's decent :)

--janak

[icatar]

Agreed - XP is the way to go - it's really Windows 2000 version 1.1 though - but still nice.

Or if you really want to get technical, it's Windows NT 5.1.2600. :D

[Janak Parekh]

Or if you really want to get technical, it's Windows NT 5.1.2600. :D
No no no! I have, from the About dialog:

"Version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpsp1.020828-1920 : Service Pack 1)"

:lol:

But you make an interesting point.

- Win95: 4.00.950
- Win95b: 4.00.1111
- Win98: 4.10.1998
- Win98SE: 4.10.2222
- WinME: 4.90.3000

(separately)
- WinNT4: 4.00.1381
- Win2k: 5.00.2195
- WinXP: 5.1.2600

--janak

[Busdriver]

Got 98SE on our desktop, which I synch with and XP on the laptop, which is networked with the desktop. BTW, nothing I have ever done with computers was more frustrating and confusing then getting this network set up, and it STILL doesn't work 100% of the time.

I've been trying to decide if I should get a new desktop with XP or do a clean install of XP on the old desktop, and it's obvious now that I'm going to have to do one or the other soon. I also think making the switch may help my continuing network problems.

BTW, I don't think I have ever done a OS upgrade either. I've owned a PC since 1983 or 1984 (starting with an Atari 800) and have only installed patches and updates. I've always gotten newer OS's through new PC purchases.

[Ed Hansberry]

- Win95: 4.00.950
- Win95b: 4.00.1111
- Win98: 4.10.1998
- Win98SE: 4.10.2222
- WinME: 4.90.3000
- Win2k: 5.00.2195
- WinXP: 5.1.2600

--janak
That lineage isn't right. 2K and XP follow Windows NT 4, not Windows 4.

[Janak Parekh]

That lineage isn't right. 2K and XP follow Windows NT 4, not Windows 4.
I know (I'd also put 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51, but I can't remember the build numbers ;)). Didn't mean to imply that they were. I've since fixed it. But the notion of XP being a "point upgrade" to 2k is definitely reflected in the version numbers.

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

I know (I'd also put 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51, but I can't remember the build numbers ;)).

http://attryde.com/clarion/cw_whatver.htm

Love google!

[ShivShanks]

That lineage isn't right. 2K and XP follow Windows NT 4, not Windows 4.
I know (I'd also put 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51, but I can't remember the build numbers ;)). Didn't mean to imply that they were. I've since fixed it. But the notion of XP being a "point upgrade" to 2k is definitely reflected in the version numbers.

--janak

The real story behind Windows NT version numbers
Well the reality about Windows NT version numbers is a little bit more complicated than what you really see. Very correctly speaking XP shouldn't really be NT 5.1. You see there never was version 1.0 of Windows NT. Microsoft started NT at version 3.1. So why was that? The reason was that NT came out first in 93 at which time Windows 3.1 was a big success quite beyond Microsoft's initial expectations when they launched Windows 3.0. So when NT was to come out most of the Windows software that existed was for Windows 3.1. Naturally it made sense for Microsoft to make as much of that as possible to run on the fledgling NT also so that the OS usage could be helped. Also quite a lot of those software didn't query the Windows version numbers quite properly and so NT in some sense had to lie and say Okay I am Windows version 3.1. They could have still said 1.0 and worked harder with Windows developers to make apps run. But they decided to take the simpler way out. Moreover version 3.1 would look better than saying version 1.0 of a product. And then there was also that perception about Microsoft getting things right with version 3 :) Anyway NT started at NT 3.1 and the rest is history. So NT 3.1 was really 1.0 and then came NT 3.5 and 3.51 which really would be 1.5 and 1.51. After that came Windows NT 4.0 which I guess really would be 2.0. Then came Win2K (NT 5.0) which really would be 3.0; and XP (NT 5.1) which really would be 3.1. So there you see. Now some cynical people would still say - See again Microsoft really got it right with version 3.0 :) (2K and XP with real versions of 3.0 and 3.1). You can find a lot of interesting information about the early history of NT and why it was developed and the very interesting stories behind it in this excellent book -
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029356717/103-8895573-4363047?vi=glance

Those who have read "The Soul of New Machine" will appreciate this book as it is quite in the tradition of that one.

[Ed Hansberry]

The real story behind Windows NT version numbers
Well the reality about Windows NT version numbers is a little bit more complicated than what you really see. Very correctly speaking XP shouldn't really be NT 5.1. You see there never was version 1.0 of Windows NT.
All of MS's programs are like that. There never was an Excel 1 for Windows, nor an Excel 6, nor an Access 3, 4, 5 or 6. Exchange started at 4, SQLServer started at 5 or 6, Outlook started at 8, etc.

Each one has a reason for the jumps and skips. Some to get in sync with other apps, some because they were not new products but MS acquired them and renamed them but kept the versioning going.

[jweitzman]

Some of those apps started on the Mac (Excel; the first Windows version was 2 to match the Mac version ( see http://www.j-walk.com/ss/excel/).

[Janak Parekh]

All of MS's programs are like that. There never was an Excel 1 for Windows, nor an Excel 6, nor an Access 3, 4, 5 or 6. Exchange started at 4, SQLServer started at 5 or 6, Outlook started at 8, etc.
Yep, MS jumps around, but there definitely was Excel 1 (on the Mac, as jweitzman pointed out), and I've used both Excel 1 and Excel 2 (and their predecessor, Multiplan :)) You can also consider Outlook 8's predecessors to be the many versions of Schedule+. Word is an interesting beast, crossing from DOS to Windows but starting over at 1.0.

Also, regarding NT: LAN Manager was technically its predecessor from a purpose standpoint, and it had versions 1 and 2. So if you think about it 3.1 isn't too terrible. Besides, the authentication and networking protocols are remarkably similar from those old OS/2 days.

Man, I'm feeling old now :oops:

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Yep, MS jumps around, but there definitely was Excel 1
Hence my "There never was an Excel 1 for Windows" statement. :D

[Ed Hansberry]

Also, regarding NT: LAN Manager was technically its predecessor from a purpose standpoint, and it had versions 1 and 2. So if you think about it 3.1 isn't too terrible. Besides, the authentication and networking protocols are remarkably similar from those old OS/2 days.
Well, NT included LANManager commands for compatibility. MS didn't want to upset the 3 customers using that product when it moved them to NT 3.1. :lol: I'd bet it didn't include so much as a single byte of code from LanManager though.

I am glad it did. I still drop to a command line and use the "net" commands for an awful lot of stuff.

[ShivShanks]

All of MS's programs are like that. There never was an Excel 1 for Windows, nor an Excel 6, nor an Access 3, 4, 5 or 6. Exchange started at 4, SQLServer started at 5 or 6, Outlook started at 8, etc.
Also, regarding NT: LAN Manager was technically its predecessor from a purpose standpoint, and it had versions 1 and 2. So if you think about it 3.1 isn't too terrible. Besides, the authentication and networking protocols are remarkably similar from those old OS/2 days.
--janak

Yes quite some of the OS/2 networking stuff came over to NT when MS stopped the OS/2 work with IBM. But NT is a very different beast compared to OS/2. In fact its miles and ages different from OS/2. Technically NT has no OS personality of its own. There are subsystems on top of NT that can give it any OS personality that you want. Its like a hybrid Microkernal architecture (not really microkernel but some ideas taken from it). So NT has always had an OS/2 subsystem for all the OS/2 derived apps. Even Windows is really the Win32 subsystem on NT. Though naturally this subsystem has more of an incestuous relationship with the core NT OS. And sure you can even give a POSIX or UNIX like appearance to NT. NT has always had a very limited POSIX subsystem built in. But now you can buy the almost full fledged UNIX subsystem called Interix if you like (yes it even has X Windows in it). So to give a long winded answer to your post. NT 3.1 isn't really right even considering LANMan, since at the core OS level it really was NT 1.0 with just some stuff added at the really top level layers from the other past OSes. Why even the decision to give the main parts of NT a Windows like look was taken very late in the game after Windows 3.0 became an unexpected success. NT was in development since 1988 and only in 1991 or so did they decide to give it a Windows personality. You should really read that book I talked about to read the quite fascinating story behind NT.

[Ed Hansberry]

NT 4 did away with the OS/2 file system, though you could hack it back in if desired. Win2K you can't do that.

The POSIX subsystem no longer ships with XP and I doubt it is in Windows .NET either.

[ShivShanks]

NT 4 did away with the OS/2 file system, though you could hack it back in if desired. Win2K you can't do that.

The POSIX subsystem no longer ships with XP and I doubt it is in Windows .NET either.

Yes but the OS/2 subsystem is still there in Win2K. See %SystemRoot%\system32\os2\. So from a FAT drive you can still run OS/2 2.0 applications. That POSIX subsystem was always a joke. It was only to show that it could be done if someone wanted and naturally MS wasn't too interested in it. But of late MS has had more customer pressure for POSIX and you can get serious replacement for it in Interix which is part of Windows Services for UNIX 3.0 -
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/default.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,54081,00.asp

They are quite serious about it and even benchmark the NFS performance of that against Red Hat Linux -
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_nfs_performance.pdf
Now isn't that cute Windows apparently beating Linux in NFS performance ;)

[Ed Hansberry]

NT 4 did away with the OS/2 file system, though you could hack it back in if desired. Win2K you can't do that.

The POSIX subsystem no longer ships with XP and I doubt it is in Windows .NET either.

Yes but the OS/2 subsystem is still there in Win2K. See %SystemRoot%\system32\os2\.
Three files?

12/07/1999 06:00a 108,095 oso001.009
12/07/1999 06:00a 12,646 doscalls.dll
12/07/1999 06:00a 247,860 netapi.dll

I think you are going to get character based 16 bit apps only. Checking technet......
Yup.
Supported ApplicationsYou can run the following types of applications with the OS/2 subsystem:

OS/2 1.x 16-bit applications on x86 computers only
Character-based applications
Unsupported Applications
You cannot run the following types of applications with the OS/2 subsystem:

OS/2 2.x applications.
Presentation Manager (PM) applications (unless you install the Windows NT Add-On Subsystem for Presentation Manager, which can be ordered separately from Microsoft)
Advanced video I/O (AVIO) applications (unless you install the Windows NT Add-On Subsystem for Presentation Manager)
OS/2 applications on RISC-based computers.
Applications that directly access hardware memory or I/O ports at Ring 2 or below.
For example, applications that directly access video memory to manipulate text or graphics are not supported. Some OS/2 applications, which rely on the statement IOPL=YES in the Config.sys file to run Ring 2 code segment, will run nevertheless under the OS/2 subsystem as long as the privileged instructions they issue in those segments are CLI/STI instructions and not IN/OUT instructions. For more details, see "I/O Privilege Mechanism" later in this chapter.

You cannot run custom device drivers (those not included with OS/2 itself). These must be rewritten to the Windows NT device driver interface.

[Janak Parekh]

Hence my "There never was an Excel 1 for Windows" statement. :D
Ah, ye are clever. You got me ;)

I'd bet it didn't include so much as a single byte of code from LanManager though.
I don't know about that. Some of the LM authentication and SMB protocol stuff must have been moved over, as well as the NDIS driver model. I'd suspect that, now, it looks nothing like the old platform. Believe it or not, there are still lots of people using OS/2 with IBM's own networking stuff, which IIRC is still based on LanMan.

Yes quite some of the OS/2 networking stuff came over to NT when MS stopped the OS/2 work with IBM. But NT is a very different beast compared to OS/2. In fact its miles and ages different from OS/2.
Oh, by all means, I'm not comparing the NT OS to the OS/2 OS. Just the LanMan stuff MS built.

Technically NT has no OS personality of its own. There are subsystems on top of NT that can give it any OS personality that you want. Its like a hybrid Microkernal architecture (not really microkernel but some ideas taken from it).
While this was once true, I'm pretty sure at this point the kernel is married to the rest of the OS. I've also used Interix (now called Services for UNIX, btw), and it very much relies on the rest of the NT subsystem nowadays. But thanks for the feedback.

NT 4 did away with the OS/2 file system, though you could hack it back in if desired.
You mean HPFS. I think NT4 supported reading and converting FROM HPFS. HPFS was a great file system in its time, just that limited ACL's and the lack of a log made MS ditch it. NT 3.5 & co supported HPFS quite extensively, IIRC.

Yes but the OS/2 subsystem is still there in Win2K. See %SystemRoot%\system32\os2\. So from a FAT drive you can still run OS/2 2.0 applications.
Yes, but only command-line applications :lol: I actually tried it once with some of my legacy OS/2 stuff, it worked fine. ;)

They are quite serious about it and even benchmark the NFS performance of that against Red Hat Linux
Yup, we use it here, as I mentioned. The NFS server is indeed very fast. The only annoying thing is the process marrying NIS to the Active Directory. It works, and works well, once you get the hang of it and are willing to construct the network appropriately.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Just reading the thread... I think we've hijacked it a little. Man, the three of us sound like old fogies here :P

--janak

[ExtremeSIMS]

Remember those other GUIs that ran on DOS? Sorta GEOS-like, lucky when you had 16 colors, etc? I "upgraded" to Windows 286, and you think Windows XP is slow now! Man!

Anyway, I use a Powerbook 800 as my primary sync partner. Don't want to step back to Palm, but I do wish there was better syncing. Pocketmac.net runs well. but....

[Ed Hansberry]

Just reading the thread... I think we've hijacked it a little. Man, the three of us sound like old fogies here :P

--janak
1. it is impossible to hijack your own thread. :lol:
2. we are talking about Windows, and that is what this thread is about. :D

BTW, NT4 supported fully HPFS if you got the right dll or sys file from an NT3.51 system and plopped it in. It was the pinball.sys or pinball.dll - pinball was the codename for HPFS when MS wrote it in the late 80's.

Same trick doesn't work in Windows 2000, but who cares anymore. Who really ever cared about OS/2. :twisted:

[The Big Jay]

http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/07/cx_ld_0107upgrade.html

The computer industry may be ready for a big year in 2003. Microsoft will be dropping all support for Windows 98 and Windows NT 4, meaning corporations and users that want to at least continue to get some security fixes and be able to buy software they can use, they will have to move to Windows 2000 or Windows XP. (Some of you may be thinking, what about Windows ME, but I am trying to be serious here.)

Lol about ME.

I dunno, there's still a lot of people and businesses who don't like switching because 1) they'll need to upgrade and face the bumpiness of doing that, because although some upgrades are smooth as silk others suck and 2) it works. Of course if it works turning off support isn't going to phase them much.

Look, I worked at a company that used Windows 3.1 (on one machine only, thankfully) once, because of some labelling thing they used.