Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4FD6961@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From: "da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: OT: SETVER equivalent for Windoze?
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:07:49 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

Well ...

Delphi 6 says it needs W98 or later, due to "missing DLL's" in W95
(available separately on the Delphi CD, IIRC), yet all the supposedly
missing DLL's required by Delphi 6, were in fact _included_ with my
W95 SR2.5 installation.

There have been several editions of W95, the earlier ones perhaps
did lack some DLL's, that some applications assume are only available
in W98+, so your theory is somewhat plausible. However, I suspect
my theory is more likely. <G>

Joe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com [SMTP:shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:20 PM
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	Re: OT: SETVER equivalent for Windoze?
> 
> In mail (today) you write:
> 
> > This is a bit off-topic, but I was wondering if there was a way to
> > fake the version that Windoze 9X reports to applications, at bit
> > like what SETVER did for DOS?
> >
> > M$ seems to be deliberately preventing installation of stuff like
> > the newer versions Windoze Media Player on Windoze 95 (to
> > force people to upgrade;-), but I doubt there is a legitimate
> > reason for them doing so ...
> 
> I rather suspect that it's *not* to force people to upgrade, but rather
> because by not supporting Win95, they can leave out a bunch of code
> that's included as part of 98 and later.
> 
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson (aka shadow{G})
>  shadow AT krypton DOT rain DOT com        <--preferred
> leonard AT qiclab DOT scn DOT rain DOT com     <--last resort