Update reported version to Windows 2000 (Service Pack?)

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,
Most of the dev team seems to be in agreement with bumping the reported version number to
Win2k
but if anyone has any objections speak now or forever maintain a patch. I need Win2k to
be
reported as the version number as many newer applications such as Office 2003 will not
install
unless that is the latest version. If you find any places where a function, resource or
anything
reports a value as NT4 or something ReactOS dependant please change it to match Windows
2000
behavior. Also I propose we just report Service Pack 4.

Thanks
Steven



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Royce Mitchell III]

Steven Edwards wrote:

>  Hi,
> Most of the dev team seems to be in agreement with bumping the reported version number to
> Win2k
> but if anyone has any objections speak now or forever maintain a patch. I need Win2k to
> be
> reported as the version number as many newer applications such as Office 2003 will not
> install
> unless that is the latest version. If you find any places where a function, resource or
> anything
> reports a value as NT4 or something ReactOS dependant please change it to match Windows
> 2000
> behavior. Also I propose we just report Service Pack 4.
>
> Thanks
> Steven
>
>   
>  
Actually I think it's not going far enough.

I think ReactOS's default OS version should match the latest, or some
future MS version. We always have app compatibility that can be enabled
where needed.

[Michael Trausch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Royce Mitchell III wrote:
>  
>  Actually I think it's not going far enough.
>  
>  I think ReactOS's default OS version should match the latest, or some
>  future MS version. We always have app compatibility that can be enabled
>  where needed.
>   
Just speaking as mostly an outsider here, I think that it'd be just
fine to report Win2k.  If WinXP stuff isn't supported, you shouldn't
report Windows XP.

You could from there, enable options that allow a user to change the
reported Windows Version globally and for each application.

Put the option in the System control panel or have it activated by a
registry setting or something.  You could then default it to XP with
provided insturctions on how to change it if necessary.

Besides, most businesses and corporations are still on either NT 4
or Windows 2000.  I only know of two or three major ones at the
moment that use XP at all, and of course even then, it's only on
workstations.  Windows XP reporting can happen when things like
StyleXP work on it.  (Along with Windows XP reporting, the nice
thing is that you can tell it what version of the family to report
itself as, along with what Service Pack and so forth, it should be
flexible and fitting to the styles of release that happened with
Microsoft.)

Just a couple of ideas.

- --
Michael B. Trausch                               <fd0man(a)gmail.com>
Blog/Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/            AIM: MB Trausch
Phone: [phone]              FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647
===================================================================
Need computer or Linux work in Atlanta?      http://www.mbtcis.com/
Do you have PGP or GPG?  Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1-nr1 (Windows 2000)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCPOh5PXInbkqM7nwRA3+0AJ41dhw7KtSRKsxU/KpkFseiJgMk5gCfbw1W
> vv2mfzKZno6Duc4HZbqWEVg=
> =kUUj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mike Swanson]

The default version reported should match the level of compatibility
the developer's think they're at. Although having a changable option
sounds nice... both basic (select NT4, 2000, XP, etc from a list) and
advanced (dig into the actual numbers). A little like SETVER (MS-DOS)
and Compatibility Mode (hidden in Win2k; enabled in WinXP), you should
have per-application settings as well.

StyleXP uses Windows XP's own visual styles, it does not add any extra
skinning functionality (WindowBlinds does, though). In order for that
to work on ReactOS, we need to implement a visual styles (uxtheme.dll)
that is compatible with Windows XP/Server 2003 first.

-- 
Mike

[Royce Mitchell III]

Mike Swanson wrote:

>  The default version reported should match the level of
> compatibility
> the developer's think they're at. Although having a changable option
> sounds nice... both basic (select NT4, 2000, XP, etc from a list) and
> advanced (dig into the actual numbers). A little like SETVER (MS-DOS)
> and Compatibility Mode (hidden in Win2k; enabled in WinXP), you should
> have per-application settings as well.
>
> StyleXP uses Windows XP's own visual styles, it does not add any extra
> skinning functionality (WindowBlinds does, though). In order for that
> to work on ReactOS, we need to implement a visual styles (uxtheme.dll)
> that is compatible with Windows XP/Server 2003 first.
>
>   
>  
All these discussions are really rather moot. We will never *be* any 
particular version of Windows. We might as well report the latest, 
giving the user the option to change it for finicky programs.

As I mentioned previously, we ought to default to reporting a "future" 
version of Windows, just to keep nosy version-checking apps happy.

[Michael Trausch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Royce Mitchell III wrote:
>   
>  All these discussions are really rather moot. We will never *be* any
>  particular version of Windows. We might as well report the latest,
>  giving the user the option to change it for finicky programs.
>  
>  As I mentioned previously, we ought to default to reporting a "future"
>  version of Windows, just to keep nosy version-checking apps happy.
>   
But don't report more then what you're capable of dealing of dealing
with the function calls of, at the same time.  For example, ROS
doesn't support XP themes/skinning of the OS yet, so I wouldn't set
it to claim it... some applications act differently if you're on
Windows XP because of that.  I would default to Win2k if you've got
that implemented, and then in the future give the user a choice to
change the version for the system as a whole if they want, say if
they are running all really old apps or something.

Because it will never be an exact Windows, the settings *should* be
changeable anyway, and allow the users to change it, because that
would allow someone to continue to use "outdated/Not supported"
software on a new more secure environment.  I'd like if that type of
thing were right in the control panel, personally, but I couldn't
implement something like that if I tried.  I'm just not yet a
programmer.

	- Mike

- --
Michael B. Trausch                               <fd0man(a)gmail.com>
Blog/Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/            AIM: MB Trausch
Phone: [phone]              FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647
===================================================================
Need computer or Linux work in Atlanta?      http://www.mbtcis.com/
Do you have PGP or GPG?  Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1-nr1 (Windows 2000)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCPQOhPXInbkqM7nwRA+G3AJ9CepeuzByA8bEsbuZs44d9CFW49QCfZi6v
> P1/dqZweiNmKghRIZmoy5lc=
> =Ty4l
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Köpferl]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't know what visual styles do have to do with API compatibility.
It's rather a EndUSER-Pixel-compatiblity. Since win uses Twips and has
SystemMetrics and so on.
Do you care about 2-3 few apps that have to do with styling?

I'd suggest a totly different version number. As Royce sayd: Ros should
be identifyable as ros and not emulating win-version numbering. But to
keep nosi version-checking apps happy we should choose a version number> 5.1
Since we are Ros 0.2.6 we can report 20.6.00?
This a) shows that this is ROS. b) The version number of ROS (0.2...)
and  c) is greater to 'do as if' all apis are supported

Michael Trausch wrote:
| Royce Mitchell III wrote:
|
|>>All these discussions are really rather moot. We will never *be* any
|>>particular version of Windows. We might as well report the latest,
|>>giving the user the option to change it for finicky programs.
|>>
|>>As I mentioned previously, we ought to default to reporting a "future"
|>>version of Windows, just to keep nosy version-checking apps happy.
|>>
|
|
| But don't report more then what you're capable of dealing of dealing
| with the function calls of, at the same time.  For example, ROS
| doesn't support XP themes/skinning of the OS yet, so I wouldn't set
| it to claim it... some applications act differently if you're on
| Windows XP because of that.  I would default to Win2k if you've got
| that implemented, and then in the future give the user a choice to
| change the version for the system as a whole if they want, say if
| they are running all really old apps or something.
|
| Because it will never be an exact Windows, the settings *should* be
| changeable anyway, and allow the users to change it, because that
| would allow someone to continue to use "outdated/Not supported"
| software on a new more secure environment.  I'd like if that type of
| thing were right in the control panel, personally, but I couldn't
| implement something like that if I tried.  I'm just not yet a
| programmer.
|
| 	- Mike
|
| --
| Michael B. Trausch                               <fd0man(a)gmail.com>
| Blog/Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/            AIM: MB Trausch
| Phone: [phone]              FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647
| ===================================================================
| Need computer or Linux work in Atlanta?      http://www.mbtcis.com/
| Do you have PGP or GPG?  Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
|
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCPc9Hx3X8982n1Q8RAmnbAJ9c+HTlj1bOHGHC7XFkeHyrZhQ6bACeP2t0
> VYEVmMy/ef9l3Y6bI/3O1jc=
> =LHNK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[art yerkes]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Steven Edwards <steven_ed4153(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>   behavior. Also I propose we just report Service Pack
> 4. 
We need a convenient way to report a different version on a per application
basis.  I think there's some code to do this but I could not determine
whether it works (despite several people telling me how to do it).  While
we're at it, can we verify that this code works and post a howto about 
reporting a specific windows version to an application?
-- 
Here's a simple experiment. Stand on a train track between two locomotives
which are pushing on you with equal force in opposite directions. You will
exhibit no net motion. None the less, you may soon begin to notice that
something important is happening.
-- Robert Stirniman