YATYRD (was: PalmOS no more? :(

[Roger Merchberger]

Rumor has it that Liam Proven may have mentioned these words:
>On 29/09/05, Scott Stevens <chenmel at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ...  And it doesn't prompt for a CD key to
> > install, and it doesn't 'fingerprint' the diskettes like the 3-1/2"
> > diskette version.
>
>Hmmm. I'm dubious.

Not sure why... Micro$oft is rarely compatible with itself, even on the 
best of days... ;-)

>  I'm not aware of any differing editions of Win95 in
>each individual version. Original Win95 - not 95a, not OSR 2 or 2.1 or
>2.5 but the plain release version - *was* very basic by today's
>standards.

True.

>  No web browser - IE came in the Plus Pack, a paid-for
>optional extra.

Which not many people paid for... ;-)

>  No CD key

Bzzt. Wrong. Original Win95, at least the [very early] CD-ROM versions that 
I worked with, did require a CD key... and you had to be careful to type in 
the capital -OEM- by hand; most people typed it in lowercase, and it would 
not pass the checksum test.

Win95A (and up) changed this to 'assume' uppercase.

I'm not saying there *weren't* Win95 versions (read: corporate) that didn't 
need a CD-Key, but *every* one I ever worked with did, and I worked with a 
lot of copies of Win95 very early on, from a lot of OEMs and copies 
purchased straight from M$.

Yes, that job drove me to drink. Often. In copious quantities. ;-)

>  & I'm not aware of 95 doing anything to fingerprint diskettes.

This I cannot speak for - I never worked with the floppy version of Win95.

Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger

--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger   | "Bugs of a feather flock together."
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers |           Russell Nelson
zmerch at 30below.com          |