Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Move back to older Palm OS version?

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 9:17:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.

According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html

Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
be a liability.

How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
advisable?

I do not have the original CD that came with the device,
if there was one.

Fred
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 9:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 6 Oct 2004 17:17:12 GMT, Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:

>I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
>
>According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
>version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
>an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
>v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
>http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
>
>Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
>that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
>hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
>advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
>be a liability.
>
>How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
>advisable?
>
>I do not have the original CD that came with the device,
>if there was one.
>
>Fred

I don't think I would go backwards. You will be missing out on
software that requires an OS above 2.0. And I believe that the
hardware you have should support OS 3.3 with no problems. Are you
experiencing problems with it?
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 9:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

krewl wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 2004 17:17:12 GMT, Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
> >I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
> >
> >According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
> >version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
> >an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
> >v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
> >http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
> >
> >Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
> >that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
> >hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
> >advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
> >be a liability.
> >
> >How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
> >advisable?
> >
> >I do not have the original CD that came with the device,
> >if there was one.
>
> I don't think I would go backwards. You will be missing out on
> software that requires an OS above 2.0. And I believe that the
> hardware you have should support OS 3.3 with no problems. Are you
> experiencing problems with it?

I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.

Fred
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 9:44:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 6 Oct 2004 17:44:54 GMT, Fred Ma wrote:

> krewl wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Oct 2004 17:17:12 GMT, Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
>>>
>>>According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
>>>version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
>>>an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
>>>v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
>>>http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
>>>
>>>Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
>>>that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
>>>hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
>>>advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
>>>be a liability.
>>>
>>>How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
>>>advisable?
>>>
>>>I do not have the original CD that came with the device,
>>>if there was one.
>>
>> I don't think I would go backwards. You will be missing out on
>> software that requires an OS above 2.0. And I believe that the
>> hardware you have should support OS 3.3 with no problems. Are you
>> experiencing problems with it?
>
> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
>
> Fred

Look. You're talking about upgrades to a device that is 7 years old. The
"migration path" is all screwed up because Palm no longer has anyone using
the device with a warranty so they don't have to support it.

When it was actively supported, you could update the upgrade card from 3.0
to 3.3. Then you could have bought the 3.5 upgrade for the unit. The more
recent OS 4.1 upgrade utilities don't support the PilotPRo with an upgrade
card. And, in fact, they no longer sell either the 3.5 upgrade or the 4.1
upgrade. So unless you can find someone willing to give you their 3.5
upgrade, you're stuck with 3.3.

OS 2 does not support the upgrade card. The only way to go back to 2.05 on
your unit is to get an original ROM card and replace the one in your unit.
This will also remove the infrared capability.

FYI: OS 2 was in ROM, but it wasn't Flash ROM. There was no release to
install OS 2 on any unit - at least none that I remember seeing.

--
Derek

The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures.
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 10:08:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Fred Ma wrote:

> I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
>
> According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
> version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
> an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
> v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
> http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
>
> Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
> that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
> hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
> advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
> be a liability.
>
> How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
> advisable?

First, I bet you have a Palm Pilot with a 2 MB upgrade card,
which I believe is how you get to OS 3.x. That really makes
the device a lot more like a Palm III than its original Palm
Pilot self.

Second, it's absolutely not advisable to go back to 2.x
when you could be running 3.3. If you look through the
programmers' documentation that Palm provides, then you'll
see that a lot of things say "this feature is not available
before 3.1" or "prior to 3.1, this function had a bug" or
similar. For most programmers, it's MUCH easier to target
your software for devices running 3.x or newer. In fact,
it's better if people are running 3.5 or newer, and it's
really tempting to target only 4.0 and newer because that
would make life easier in many cases.

So, for software compatibility, the very best thing you
could do is to get 4.0 on that device. I'm not sure if an
upgrade exists, but if it did, that would be the best thing.

- Logan
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 10:08:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:08:41 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote:

> Fred Ma wrote:
>
>> I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
>>
>> According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
>> version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
>> an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
>> v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
>> http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
>>
>> Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
>> that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
>> hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
>> advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
>> be a liability.
>>
>> How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
>> advisable?
>
> First, I bet you have a Palm Pilot with a 2 MB upgrade card,
> which I believe is how you get to OS 3.x. That really makes
> the device a lot more like a Palm III than its original Palm
> Pilot self.
>
> Second, it's absolutely not advisable to go back to 2.x
> when you could be running 3.3. If you look through the
> programmers' documentation that Palm provides, then you'll
> see that a lot of things say "this feature is not available
> before 3.1" or "prior to 3.1, this function had a bug" or
> similar. For most programmers, it's MUCH easier to target
> your software for devices running 3.x or newer. In fact,
> it's better if people are running 3.5 or newer, and it's
> really tempting to target only 4.0 and newer because that
> would make life easier in many cases.
>
> So, for software compatibility, the very best thing you
> could do is to get 4.0 on that device. I'm not sure if an
> upgrade exists, but if it did, that would be the best thing.

Palm sold OS 3.5 upgrades for the PilotPro upgrade card. But you can't get
that from them anymore. As soon as they started selling 4.1 upgrades, the
3.5 upgrade disappeared.

I still haven't found a way to upgrade my PilotPro to 4.0 or 4.1. I know
it's possible, but I don't know how to do it. The CD from Palm upgraded my
old Vx without problems. But it doesn't support the upgraded PilotPro.

If anyone did know how to do this, I'd love to know. I was horribly honest
and bought two copies of the upgrade only to find that my PilotPro was a
no-show.

--
Derek

While good fortune often eludes you, misfortune never misses.
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 10:57:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

* Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca>:
> I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
>
> According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
> version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
> an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
> v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
> http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html

This seems to be a small in-memory patch to PalmOS 2.0.x, not a
complete PalmOS. Of course this small patch is only useful with the
PalmOS it is intended for.

If you already have 3.3, you simply don't need this patch.

> Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
> that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
> hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
> advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
> be a liability.

There are many programs which use new system calls which are only
available in newer PalmOS versions, so using PalmOS 3.3 might not
give you an advantage when only using the built in applications, but
for others 3.3 might be required.

Thomas

--
Email: thomas@jtah.de (at work: thomas@intevation.de)
http://jtah.de/
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 10:57:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Derek wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:08:41 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote:
>
> > Fred Ma wrote:
> >
> >> I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
> >>
> >> According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
> >> version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
> >> an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
> >> v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
> >> http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
> >>
> >> Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
> >> that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
> >> hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
> >> advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
> >> be a liability.
> >>
> >> How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
> >> advisable?
> >
> > First, I bet you have a Palm Pilot with a 2 MB upgrade card,
> > which I believe is how you get to OS 3.x. That really makes
> > the device a lot more like a Palm III than its original Palm
> > Pilot self.
> >
> > Second, it's absolutely not advisable to go back to 2.x
> > when you could be running 3.3. If you look through the
> > programmers' documentation that Palm provides, then you'll
> > see that a lot of things say "this feature is not available
> > before 3.1" or "prior to 3.1, this function had a bug" or
> > similar. For most programmers, it's MUCH easier to target
> > your software for devices running 3.x or newer. In fact,
> > it's better if people are running 3.5 or newer, and it's
> > really tempting to target only 4.0 and newer because that
> > would make life easier in many cases.
> >
> > So, for software compatibility, the very best thing you
> > could do is to get 4.0 on that device. I'm not sure if an
> > upgrade exists, but if it did, that would be the best thing.
>
> Palm sold OS 3.5 upgrades for the PilotPro upgrade card. But you can't get
> that from them anymore. As soon as they started selling 4.1 upgrades, the
> 3.5 upgrade disappeared.
>
> I still haven't found a way to upgrade my PilotPro to 4.0 or 4.1. I know
> it's possible, but I don't know how to do it. The CD from Palm upgraded my
> old Vx without problems. But it doesn't support the upgraded PilotPro.
>
> If anyone did know how to do this, I'd love to know. I was horribly honest
> and bought two copies of the upgrade only to find that my PilotPro was a
> no-show.

Thanks for your thoughts on the advisability of moving to 4.0. I'll
use it as-is until I get to know it more, then consider the 4.0.

Fred
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 10:57:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 6 Oct 2004 18:57:52 GMT, Fred Ma wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:08:41 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Ma wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.
>>>>
>>>> According to the Palm website, the only useful Palm OS
>>>> version for Palm Pilot is v. 2.0.5. The download exists as
>>>> an update. It says that if installed onto v1.0.x or
>>>> v3.0.0, it will have no effect.
>>>> http://www.palmone.com/us/support/downloads/upd205.html
>>>>
>>>> Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
>>>> that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
>>>> hardware on the more recent Palm devices. So there is no
>>>> advantage to using them. I would imagine that it may even
>>>> be a liability.
>>>>
>>>> How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5? Is this
>>>> advisable?
>>>
>>> First, I bet you have a Palm Pilot with a 2 MB upgrade card,
>>> which I believe is how you get to OS 3.x. That really makes
>>> the device a lot more like a Palm III than its original Palm
>>> Pilot self.
>>>
>>> Second, it's absolutely not advisable to go back to 2.x
>>> when you could be running 3.3. If you look through the
>>> programmers' documentation that Palm provides, then you'll
>>> see that a lot of things say "this feature is not available
>>> before 3.1" or "prior to 3.1, this function had a bug" or
>>> similar. For most programmers, it's MUCH easier to target
>>> your software for devices running 3.x or newer. In fact,
>>> it's better if people are running 3.5 or newer, and it's
>>> really tempting to target only 4.0 and newer because that
>>> would make life easier in many cases.
>>>
>>> So, for software compatibility, the very best thing you
>>> could do is to get 4.0 on that device. I'm not sure if an
>>> upgrade exists, but if it did, that would be the best thing.
>>
>> Palm sold OS 3.5 upgrades for the PilotPro upgrade card. But you can't get
>> that from them anymore. As soon as they started selling 4.1 upgrades, the
>> 3.5 upgrade disappeared.
>>
>> I still haven't found a way to upgrade my PilotPro to 4.0 or 4.1. I know
>> it's possible, but I don't know how to do it. The CD from Palm upgraded my
>> old Vx without problems. But it doesn't support the upgraded PilotPro.
>>
>> If anyone did know how to do this, I'd love to know. I was horribly honest
>> and bought two copies of the upgrade only to find that my PilotPro was a
>> no-show.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on the advisability of moving to 4.0. I'll
> use it as-is until I get to know it more, then consider the 4.0.

Wouldn't you know it. I've been looking for a way to get this to work for
months and after reading your post, I found it.

If you get the OS4.1 upgrade CD (you may have to buy it on eBay like I did
- but beware the illegal copies), you can install the OS4.1 upgrade by
selecting "advanced mode" when the program gets around to Flashing the
memory.

The program defaults to a PalmIII ROM Image. Simply ignore the warning that
the image doesn't match your handheld and proceed. In less than 10 minutes,
your PilotPro with the 2mb upgrade will be running OS4.1

Oh, happy day.

Now, if I can just find a way to switch it to AC power... ;) 

--
Derek

"A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day is the U.S.
soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded
ordinance . . . He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it
exploded." - Ben Stein
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 11:14:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote in
news:41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca:

> But the lack of a clear
> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.

There is a clear path... upwards.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 11:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Fred Ma a écrit, le 06/10/2004 19:17 :

> I've got a Palm Piolot with Palm OS v.3.3.

What model? You say "Palm Pilot", so theorically, it's a Palm Pilot
Personnal or Professional, but it's often used as a generic term. And PP
with the OS 3 upgrade card (because a new memory card was needed) are
uncommon.

> Somewhere, on one of Palm's many information pages, it says
> that many of the newer Palm OS's take advantage of newer
> hardware on the more recent Palm devices.

In the case of the older OS, it's less true than, say, OS 4.

> How can I regress from v.3.3 back to v.2.0.5?

You have to get back the old card, if it's really a Palm Pilot Pers/Pro.

> Is this advisable?

No.

> I do not have the original CD that came with the device,
> if there was one.

Don't worry, you don't need it.

--

Internet, newsgroups, e-mail => Netiquette
http://usenet-fr.news.eu.org/fr.usenet.reponses/usenet/...
news:fr.bienvenue news:fr.bienvenue.questions
news:news.announce.newusers news:fr.usenet.reponses
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 1:23:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Derek wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 2004 18:57:52 GMT, Fred Ma wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts on the advisability of moving to 4.0. I'll
> > use it as-is until I get to know it more, then consider the 4.0.
>
> If you get the OS4.1 upgrade CD (you may have to buy it on eBay like I did
> - but beware the illegal copies), you can install the OS4.1 upgrade by
> selecting "advanced mode" when the program gets around to Flashing the
> memory.
>
> The program defaults to a PalmIII ROM Image. Simply ignore the warning that
> the image doesn't match your handheld and proceed. In less than 10 minutes,
> your PilotPro with the 2mb upgrade will be running OS4.1


Thanks for that info. I might follow your footsteps a bit later...

Fred
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 2:50:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
<fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:

> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.

It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW, Palm OS'
are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a Windows or
Mac OS is.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 2:50:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
>
> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW, Palm OS'
> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a Windows or
> Mac OS is.

Not entirely true.

One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
won't support the hardware.

Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.

--
Derek

Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who
want crops without plowing the ground. -- Frederick Douglass, abolitionist,
editor and orator (1817-1895)
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 6:30:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
> > <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
> >> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
> >> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
> >> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
> >> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
> >
> > It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW, Palm OS'
> > are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a Windows or
> > Mac OS is.
>
> Not entirely true.
>
> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
> won't support the hardware.
>
> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.

Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 6:30:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
>>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
>>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
>>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
>>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
>>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
>>>
>>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW, Palm OS'
>>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a Windows or
>>> Mac OS is.
>>
>> Not entirely true.
>>
>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
>> won't support the hardware.
>>
>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>
> Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...

Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.
--
Derek

"Politics does not make strange bedfellows. Marriage does." -- Groucho Marx
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 11:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <n63809s87agu.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
> >>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
> >>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
> >>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
> >>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
> >>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW, Palm OS'
> >>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a Windows or
> >>> Mac OS is.
> >>
> >> Not entirely true.
> >>
> >> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
> >> won't support the hardware.
> >>
> >> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
> >
> > Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
>
> Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
> to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.

Let me see:

I say: The Palm OS is not interchangeable or installable "in the way" that
a Windows or Mac OS is.

You say: One can upgrade "to some extent" but downgrading won't work.

Sounds like the same point. Palm, in the past, has provided a few flash
upgrades. Currently, the Palm OS is not provided to end users at all,
unlike the Windows or Mac OS.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 11:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:07:54 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <n63809s87agu.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>>> In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
>>>>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
>>>>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
>>>>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
>>>>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
>>>>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW, Palm OS'
>>>>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a Windows or
>>>>> Mac OS is.
>>>>
>>>> Not entirely true.
>>>>
>>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
>>>> won't support the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>>>
>>> Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
>>
>> Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
>> to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.
>
> Let me see:
>
> I say: The Palm OS is not interchangeable or installable "in the way" that
> a Windows or Mac OS is.
>
> You say: One can upgrade "to some extent" but downgrading won't work.

Makes more sense if you leave the sentence I wrote intact and in context

I wrote:

>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
>> won't support the hardware.
>>
>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.

Note the "why." Windows 95 won't run some newer hardware (USB). Mac OS X
won't run on older hardware (processors). These are the same types problems
you run into if you tried to run OS 2 on an M515.

> Sounds like the same point. Palm, in the past, has provided a few flash
> upgrades. Currently, the Palm OS is not provided to end users at all,
> unlike the Windows or Mac OS.

You said nothing about whether or not the OS was available to the end user.
You mentioned only "interchangeable" and "installable."

Availability to the end user is only one of any number of comparisons that
could be made.

--
Derek

You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and, statistically
speaking, 99% of the shots you do.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 2:44:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <1kmxqus7136oc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:07:54 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <n63809s87agu.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
> >>>>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
> >>>>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
> >>>>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
> >>>>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
> >>>>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW,
Palm OS'
> >>>>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a
Windows or
> >>>>> Mac OS is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not entirely true.
> >>>>
> >>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
> >>>> won't support the hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
> >>
> >> Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
> >> to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.
> >
> > Let me see:
> >
> > I say: The Palm OS is not interchangeable or installable "in the way" that
> > a Windows or Mac OS is.
> >
> > You say: One can upgrade "to some extent" but downgrading won't work.
>
> Makes more sense if you leave the sentence I wrote intact and in context
>
> I wrote:
>
> >> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
> >> won't support the hardware.
> >>
> >> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>
> Note the "why." Windows 95 won't run some newer hardware (USB). Mac OS X
> won't run on older hardware (processors). These are the same types problems
> you run into if you tried to run OS 2 on an M515.
>
> > Sounds like the same point. Palm, in the past, has provided a few flash
> > upgrades. Currently, the Palm OS is not provided to end users at all,
> > unlike the Windows or Mac OS.
>
> You said nothing about whether or not the OS was available to the end user.
> You mentioned only "interchangeable" and "installable."
>
> Availability to the end user is only one of any number of comparisons that
> could be made.

All these words, but you're still agreeing with me that the Palm OS is not
"interchangeable and installable in the same way" as a Windows or Mac OS.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 2:44:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:44:32 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <1kmxqus7136oc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:07:54 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>>> In article <n63809s87agu.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
>>>>>>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
>>>>>>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
>>>>>>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
>>>>>>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
>>>>>>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW,
> Palm OS'
>>>>>>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a
> Windows or
>>>>>>> Mac OS is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not entirely true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
>>>>>> won't support the hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
>>>> to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.
>>>
>>> Let me see:
>>>
>>> I say: The Palm OS is not interchangeable or installable "in the way" that
>>> a Windows or Mac OS is.
>>>
>>> You say: One can upgrade "to some extent" but downgrading won't work.
>>
>> Makes more sense if you leave the sentence I wrote intact and in context
>>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
>>>> won't support the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>>
>> Note the "why." Windows 95 won't run some newer hardware (USB). Mac OS X
>> won't run on older hardware (processors). These are the same types problems
>> you run into if you tried to run OS 2 on an M515.
>>
>>> Sounds like the same point. Palm, in the past, has provided a few flash
>>> upgrades. Currently, the Palm OS is not provided to end users at all,
>>> unlike the Windows or Mac OS.
>>
>> You said nothing about whether or not the OS was available to the end user.
>> You mentioned only "interchangeable" and "installable."
>>
>> Availability to the end user is only one of any number of comparisons that
>> could be made.
>
> All these words, but you're still agreeing with me that the Palm OS is not
> "interchangeable and installable in the same way" as a Windows or Mac OS.

And you're still so stuck on proving that I agree with you that you seem to
be completely missing my point.

--
Derek

The nice thing about losing one's marbles is that you only have to pick up
the ones you want.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 9:02:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <1odj5mop8zfme.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:44:32 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>
> > In article <1kmxqus7136oc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:07:54 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <n63809s87agu.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
> >>>>>>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
> >>>>>>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
> >>>>>>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
> >>>>>>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
> >>>>>>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW,
> > Palm OS'
> >>>>>>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a
> > Windows or
> >>>>>>> Mac OS is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not entirely true.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work
because the OS
> >>>>>> won't support the hardware.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
> >>>> to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.
> >>>
> >>> Let me see:
> >>>
> >>> I say: The Palm OS is not interchangeable or installable "in the way" that
> >>> a Windows or Mac OS is.
> >>>
> >>> You say: One can upgrade "to some extent" but downgrading won't work.
> >>
> >> Makes more sense if you leave the sentence I wrote intact and in context
> >>
> >> I wrote:
> >>
> >>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
> >>>> won't support the hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
> >>
> >> Note the "why." Windows 95 won't run some newer hardware (USB). Mac OS X
> >> won't run on older hardware (processors). These are the same types problems
> >> you run into if you tried to run OS 2 on an M515.
> >>
> >>> Sounds like the same point. Palm, in the past, has provided a few flash
> >>> upgrades. Currently, the Palm OS is not provided to end users at all,
> >>> unlike the Windows or Mac OS.
> >>
> >> You said nothing about whether or not the OS was available to the end user.
> >> You mentioned only "interchangeable" and "installable."
> >>
> >> Availability to the end user is only one of any number of comparisons that
> >> could be made.
> >
> > All these words, but you're still agreeing with me that the Palm OS is not
> > "interchangeable and installable in the same way" as a Windows or Mac OS.
>
> And you're still so stuck on proving that I agree with you that you seem to
> be completely missing my point.

I think we're both stuck on it but I'll play along some more.

I said that the Palm OS is not interchangeable and installable in the way
the Windows and Mac OSs are.

You claim you disagree. But the opposite of what I said is that the Palm
OS IS interchangeable and installable ...

You've given many reasons it is not.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 9:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:02:58 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:

> In article <1odj5mop8zfme.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:44:32 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1kmxqus7136oc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:07:54 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <n63809s87agu.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:30:52 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <16ob55xj3gnoc$.dlg@gwinn.us>, Derek <news@gwinn.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:50:55 GMT, Guy Bannis wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <41642F11.8EE68F5B@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma
>>>>>>>>> <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never used it before. Just trying to get off on a good start.
>>>>>>>>>> But I'll stick with OS 3.3, unless there is a good reason to try
>>>>>>>>>> to find a regression path. In the absence of any previous testimony,
>>>>>>>>>> I had only my speculated reasons above. But the lack of a clear
>>>>>>>>>> migration path makes it questionable whether it's worthwhile.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't sound like you have any reason to go backward ... BTW,
>>> Palm OS'
>>>>>>>>> are not interchangeable or installable in the way, say, that a
>>> Windows or
>>>>>>>>> Mac OS is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not entirely true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work
> because the OS
>>>>>>>> won't support the hardware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly sounds like what I wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it was intended to suggest the opposite - at least with respect
>>>>>> to the interhcangeability of Windows or Mac.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me see:
>>>>>
>>>>> I say: The Palm OS is not interchangeable or installable "in the way" that
>>>>> a Windows or Mac OS is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say: One can upgrade "to some extent" but downgrading won't work.
>>>>
>>>> Makes more sense if you leave the sentence I wrote intact and in context
>>>>
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> One can upgrade to some extent. But downgrading won't work because the OS
>>>>>> won't support the hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind of like reverting to Windows 95 and expecting USB to work.
>>>>
>>>> Note the "why." Windows 95 won't run some newer hardware (USB). Mac OS X
>>>> won't run on older hardware (processors). These are the same types problems
>>>> you run into if you tried to run OS 2 on an M515.
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like the same point. Palm, in the past, has provided a few flash
>>>>> upgrades. Currently, the Palm OS is not provided to end users at all,
>>>>> unlike the Windows or Mac OS.
>>>>
>>>> You said nothing about whether or not the OS was available to the end user.
>>>> You mentioned only "interchangeable" and "installable."
>>>>
>>>> Availability to the end user is only one of any number of comparisons that
>>>> could be made.
>>>
>>> All these words, but you're still agreeing with me that the Palm OS is not
>>> "interchangeable and installable in the same way" as a Windows or Mac OS.
>>
>> And you're still so stuck on proving that I agree with you that you seem to
>> be completely missing my point.
>
> I think we're both stuck on it but I'll play along some more.

<Elvis>

You can shake an apple off an apple tree, Shake-a, shake- sugar,
But you'll never shake me, Uh-uh-uh, No-sir-ee, uh, uh
I'm gonna stick like glue, Stick because I'm
Stuck on you

</Elvis>

> I said that the Palm OS is not interchangeable and installable in the way
> the Windows and Mac OSs are.
>
> You claim you disagree. But the opposite of what I said is that the Palm
> OS IS interchangeable and installable ...
>
> You've given many reasons it is not.

I prefaced my comments with "not entirely." Why? Because I don't disagree
completely. I dissent with your choice of words.

If one wanted to nitpick one could argue that the Palm OS differs simply
from Windows or Mac simply based on the fact that you have to Flash ROM
rather than install on a hard drive.

--
Derek

When birds fly in the right formation, they need only exert half the
effort. Even in nature, teamwork results in collective laziness.
!