Question about XP support

Question about XP support

[Jim Reisert AD1C]

I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
Yet the Cygwin home page says:

    https://cygwin.com/

    "The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially
released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with
Windows XP SP3."

I'm happy to be wrong about this!  I have to support one laptop still
running Windows XP.  Over the weekend, I found that ZIP/UNZIP wasn't
installed, but I believe I trashed my installation by keeping the
Cygwin .DLL at the old version (probably 1.6).  I'd like to get it all
working again, 1.7xx would be fine.  I'm aware of the Cygwin (not Hot
Tub) Time Machine, and will try that if needed on Thursday when I'm in
front of the laptop again.

-- 
Jim Reisert AD1C, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.us

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Erik Soderquist]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
> Yet the Cygwin home page says:
>
>     https://cygwin.com/
>
>     "The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially
> released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with
> Windows XP SP3."

There has been notice that XP support will be dropped at some point in
the future, but as far as I know, that point has not been reached.

As I understood the conversation, XP support will be dropped when the
coding work for a new fix/feature/package is more than the coding work
to simply drop XP support.

-- Erik

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Erik Soderquist]

>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>> I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
>> Yet the Cygwin home page says:
>>
>>     https://cygwin.com/
>>
>>     "The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially
>> released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with
>> Windows XP SP3."
>
> There has been notice that XP support will be dropped at some point in
> the future, but as far as I know, that point has not been reached.
>
> As I understood the conversation, XP support will be dropped when the
> coding work for a new fix/feature/package is more than the coding work
> to simply drop XP support.

There is also the "cygwin time machine" available
http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/index.html#cygwintimemachine

-- Erik

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Jim Reisert AD1C]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:

> There has been notice that XP support will be dropped at some point in
> the future, but as far as I know, that point has not been reached.

Thanks to those who replied.  This will make it easier for me to fix
what I broke.

-- 
Jim Reisert AD1C, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.us

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Herbert Stocker]

On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.

No, has not yet been removed.
And i'm sooo happy about this.

Cause i'm still using XP for my work. Deliberately.
Why? Because it's so lightweight in a virtual machine.
Give it only a few hundred Megabytes of RAM and it runs.

And for those who say XP is insecure because it doesn't receive
updates anymore: If i run a virus scan on my XP (using GData)
it does NOT find anything.

And BTW, Microsoft still sends me a Defender update every month
via automatic updates.


my 2 cents,

Herbert Stocker



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> > I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
> 
> No, has not yet been removed.
> And i'm sooo happy about this.

Uh oh, bad timing...

The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
existing applications yet.

But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Question about XP support

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>> On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>> > I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
>>
>> No, has not yet been removed.
>> And i'm sooo happy about this.
>
> Uh oh, bad timing...
>
> The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> existing applications yet.
>
> But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.

Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?




>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Red Hat



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Erik Soderquist]

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Uh oh, bad timing...
> >
> > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> > existing applications yet.
> >
> > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
>
> Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
> of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
> use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
> from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?

I like this idea.  I too have some isolated XP VM stations (mine
deliberately have zero network connection; "defender updates" do NOT
close security holes) that I currently plan to continue using until
I've learned enough programming myself to rewrite the windows only
utilities I have running in these stations.  A version change from
from 2.x to 3.x at the official end of XP support would make it a very
clean marker.

-- Erik

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1535 bytes --]

On May 25 10:22, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> > On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Uh oh, bad timing...
> > >
> > > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> > > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> > > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> > > existing applications yet.
> > >
> > > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
> >
> > Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
> > of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
> > use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
> > from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?
> 
> I like this idea.  I too have some isolated XP VM stations (mine
> deliberately have zero network connection; "defender updates" do NOT
> close security holes) that I currently plan to continue using until
> I've learned enough programming myself to rewrite the windows only
> utilities I have running in these stations.  A version change from
> from 2.x to 3.x at the official end of XP support would make it a very
> clean marker.

2.6, probably.  This is much more than you got back in the days when
we dropped support for 9x, NT4, W2K ;)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Question about XP support

[Erik Soderquist]

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 2.6, probably.  This is much more than you got back in the days when
> we dropped support for 9x, NT4, W2K ;)

I'll be happy with that :)

-- Erik

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

On May 25 09:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> > On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> >> On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> >> > I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
> >>
> >> No, has not yet been removed.
> >> And i'm sooo happy about this.
> >
> > Uh oh, bad timing...
> >
> > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> > existing applications yet.
> >
> > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
> 
> Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
> of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
> use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
> from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?

The XP-breaking release will certainly be a major release.  I doubt it's
called 3.0, though.  2.6 is more likely.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Question about XP support

[Thomas Wolff]

Am 25.05.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> On May 25 09:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
>>> On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>>>> On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>>>>> I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
>>>> No, has not yet been removed.
>>>> And i'm sooo happy about this.
>>> Uh oh, bad timing...
>>>
>>> The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
>>> It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
>>> functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
>>> existing applications yet.
>>>
>>> But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
>> Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
>> of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
>> use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
>> from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?
> The XP-breaking release will certainly be a major release.  I doubt it's
> called 3.0, though.  2.6 is more likely.
May I propose 2.7, to suggest "needs Windows 7"? And 2.siX would be the
last to support Xp, to have some memorable acoustic connotation...:)
Thomas

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Question about XP support

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1761 bytes --]

On May 29 15:01, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Am 25.05.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> > On May 25 09:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 25 May 2016 at 06:07, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 24 20:38, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> > > > > On 24.05.2016 18:44, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> > > > > > I thought that support for Windows XP had been removed from Cygwin.
> > > > > No, has not yet been removed.
> > > > > And i'm sooo happy about this.
> > > > Uh oh, bad timing...
> > > > 
> > > > The next release 2.5.2 introduces the first non-XP compatible code.
> > > > It's in a seldom used corner of the code and it doesn't require
> > > > functions unavailable on XP, so it will very likely not break 99% of the
> > > > existing applications yet.
> > > > 
> > > > But the next release after will very likely break XP support entirely.
> > > Would this be something to move to 3.x because there seems to be a lot
> > > of people who come onto the list a lot. That way they know they can
> > > use 2.5.1 and that is the last 'stable' release they need to 'fork'
> > > from as say Cygnus-XP1 to keep going?
> > The XP-breaking release will certainly be a major release.  I doubt it's
> > called 3.0, though.  2.6 is more likely.
> May I propose 2.7, to suggest "needs Windows 7"? And 2.siX would be the
> last to support Xp, to have some memorable acoustic connotation...:)

Nice idea, but... Windows 2003 and 64 bit XP is kernel 5.2 and Vista
(still supported afterwards) is the first 6er kernel.  2.5.2 -> 2.6
sounds good to me ;)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

help Unsubscribe

[Eva Axehult]

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple