Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

paranoia on more OS5 incompatibility (OS5.4 on soon to get..

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:50:34 PM

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

Just found out OS5.2+ has "upgraded" (read: purposely made incompatible)
the db's from earlier Palm OS PIM data, although I'm unclear on the exact
extent. Does anybody know about this? Will I be able to still run the
old Palm Desktop 4.1, or have to "upgrade" that too, possibly making it
unusable on one computer because you can bet they've purposely made it
incompatible now with W95 (PD 4.1 still works fine with it). If none of
it works, can the old PIM data be imported to the new PD? If not, can it
be imported to whatever PocketPC's desktop PIM component is? I know I
keep saying this, but I'm getting almost pissed enough to consider
switching to PPC. And, if so will the PPC PIM run on W95? W98SE if not?
TIA for any info :) 
--
_____________________________________________________
For email response, or CC, please mailto:see.my.sig.4.addr(at)bigfoot.com.
Yeah, it's really a real address :) 
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:28:11 AM

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

<see.my.sig.4.addr@nowhere.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:7773v05v0di7k92v6c3hg6eo07oj74lu2f@4ax.com...
> Just found out OS5.2+ has "upgraded" (read: purposely made incompatible)
> the db's from earlier Palm OS PIM data, although I'm unclear on the exact
> extent. Does anybody know about this? Will I be able to still run the
> old Palm Desktop 4.1, or have to "upgrade" that too, possibly making it
> unusable on one computer because you can bet they've purposely made it
> incompatible now with W95 (PD 4.1 still works fine with it). If none of
> it works, can the old PIM data be imported to the new PD? If not, can it
> be imported to whatever PocketPC's desktop PIM component is? I know I
> keep saying this, but I'm getting almost pissed enough to consider
> switching to PPC. And, if so will the PPC PIM run on W95? W98SE if not?
> TIA for any info :) 
> --

I can't say for sure but I suspect that you will need the new desktop to
connect and sync to the Treo. On the plus side the old data from the
previous PIMs will come over to the Treo and the new desktop SW. The down
side is that if you have done lot's of customization in your address book it
may not come over perfectly clean.

I don't know about "purposefully" making it incompatible with W95 but do you
really expect them to support an OS that is now 10 years old?

TC
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:53:15 PM

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

Tony Clark wrote:

> but do you
> really expect them to support an OS that is now 10 years old?

Well, they still support PalmOS (that is 9 years old)....

SCNR,
Oliver
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 7:39:43 PM

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

"Oliver W. Leibenguth" <oliver.usenet@compuseum.de> wrote in message
news:1i64lgr3nzlc4.dlg@compuseum.de...
> Tony Clark wrote:
>
>> but do you
>> really expect them to support an OS that is now 10 years old?
>
> Well, they still support PalmOS (that is 9 years old)....
>
> SCNR,
> Oliver

No, they do not support the version of Palm OS that came out 9 years ago and
neither do any of the application vendors. Just try and get someone to fix a
bug related to Palm OS 1.0.

TC
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 9:27:23 PM

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

"Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, they do not support the version of Palm OS that came out 9 years ago

Perhaps not 9 years, but maybe 7+ years? That is if by 'support' he means that
the latest production OS5 still supports most (correctly written-not hacks) OS2
and up apps. Most of my old OS2 and OS3 apps will run on my OS5 Zire72.

>and neither do any of the application vendors.

Some do support old OS's (though perhaps not back 9 years as the OP said). For
example eREADER PRO still supports OS3. In fact I got a chuckle from their
ereader sales info page. It still shows a Palm IIIc !!! Now that is ancient
support... ;) 

http://www.palmdigitalmedia.com/product/detail/15003
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:22:32 PM

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

"AaronJ" <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:ks45v0p8qqiro9adthn6s0i3k4je01deeq@4ax.com...
> "Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, they do not support the version of Palm OS that came out 9 years ago
>
> Perhaps not 9 years, but maybe 7+ years? That is if by 'support' he means
> that
> the latest production OS5 still supports most (correctly written-not
> hacks) OS2
> and up apps. Most of my old OS2 and OS3 apps will run on my OS5 Zire72.
>
>>and neither do any of the application vendors.
>
> Some do support old OS's (though perhaps not back 9 years as the OP said).
> For
> example eREADER PRO still supports OS3. In fact I got a chuckle from their
> ereader sales info page. It still shows a Palm IIIc !!! Now that is
> ancient
> support... ;) 
>
> http://www.palmdigitalmedia.com/product/detail/15003

Having an application that runs on older versions of Palm OS is different
than actually supporting it. For example, most vendors will not provide
patches to resolve issues on Palm OS beyond the last couple of versions (OS
4 and in some rare cases OS 3). Likewise Palm will not offer any new patches
for older versions of Palm OS and in many cases they won't even issue
patches for fairly recent versions of Palm applications like Versamail. Docs
to Go for example will only support the currently released version even
though D2G 6 is still shipping with many new Palms (Zire 72 for example).

The OP was upset that the newest version of the Palm Desktop didn't run
correctly on Win 95. Win 95 is a buggy and problematic OS and I think it's
unreasonable to expect Palm to put any effort into fixing Palm Desktop to
run on Win 95 when the simple solution is to upgrade from Win 95 to Win XP
or even Win 98.

Cheers
TC
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:43:33 AM

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

"Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Having an application that runs on older versions of Palm OS is different
>than actually supporting it.

The word 'support' can be used in many different ways. Here are some examples:

An OS can support many users.
A word processor might not support graphics.
An OS will support a particular microprocessor.
An OS gets support from it's manufacturer.

And the Palm OS5 operating system, written for an ARM processor, will support
code that was written for an earlier Dragonball processor. For that reason the
OS5 operating system will support older (maybe up to 9 years older like Oliver
said :)  software written for an earlier Palm operating system. Palm made a
conscious effort to *support* this old software, and for very good economic
reasons... ;) 
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:35:56 AM

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

"AaronJ" <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:rft8v0tpqt076uqjafbaqe521oi34ksjvj@4ax.com...
SNIP

>
> The word 'support' can be used in many different ways. Here are some
> examples:
>
> An OS can support many users.
> A word processor might not support graphics.
> An OS will support a particular microprocessor.
> An OS gets support from it's manufacturer.
>

Had you read the entire thread you would know that "support" in the context
of this discussion refers to a Palm application being supported on an OS
that was released 10 years ago. Therefore just because an application,
written for a current version of the OS, partially runs on an older version
of the OS does not mean that the developer of that application will provide
any "support" in the form of patches for that application on the older OS.

> And the Palm OS5 operating system, written for an ARM processor, will
> support
> code that was written for an earlier Dragonball processor. For that reason
> the
> OS5 operating system will support older (maybe up to 9 years older like
> Oliver
> said :)  software written for an earlier Palm operating system. Palm made a
> conscious effort to *support* this old software, and for very good
> economic
> reasons... ;) 

As we all have seen there are many programs that didn't make the transition
from Palm OS 4 to Palm OS 5 without modification. These applications were
not "supported" on Palm OS5. What you are refering to is exactly opposite of
what the OP was complaining about. That is he wants a new application, Palm
Desktop 4.1, to be supported on an older OS (ie Win 95). The short and
simple solution to a new application that doesn't work on a 10 year old OS
is to update the OS to a current version.

TC
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 11:41:38 AM

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

"Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Had you read the entire thread you would know that "support" in the context
>of this discussion refers to a Palm application being supported on an OS
>that was released 10 years ago.

You're referring to the OP's complaint. I was referring to Oliver's comment.
Oliver might have meant what you say or maybe not. That's why I started off my
post with: " if by 'support' he means " and continued on that premise.

>Therefore just because an application,
>written for a current version of the OS, partially runs on an older version
>of the OS does not mean that the developer of that application will provide
>any "support" in the form of patches for that application on the older OS.

Course you're still stuck on definition 4, while I'm using definition 5... ;) 

>The short and simple solution to a new application that doesn't work on a 10 year old OS
>is to update the OS to a current version.

Sounds like good advice for the OP. Did I say that was wrong somewhere?

Anyway, these semantics things are best kept short. You have the last word.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 11:55:33 AM

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:50:34 -0800,
see.my.sig.4.addr@nowhere.com.invalid wrote:

> Just found out OS5.2+ has "upgraded" (read: purposely made incompatible)
> the db's from earlier Palm OS PIM data, although I'm unclear on the exact
> extent. Does anybody know about this?

"Purposely made incompatible" is an opinion, one with obvious spin.

> Will I be able to still run the
> old Palm Desktop 4.1, or have to "upgrade" that too, possibly making it
> unusable on one computer because you can bet they've purposely made it
> incompatible now with W95 (PD 4.1 still works fine with it).

Perhaps you've got it backwards.

All of the new handhelds ship with USB cables. Windows 95 barely
supported USB. This is why most USB peripherals state that they only
work on Windows 98 or newer.

It makes no sense to redesign conduits to work with an OS that won't
support the hardware.

> If none of it works, can the old PIM data be imported to the new PD?

But why are you asking?

If you're wanting to upgrade PalmDesktop, don't bother. You wouldn't
gain anything from the new version if you use it with an older
handheld.

If you're wanting to upgrade your Palm Handheld and you're still using
Windows 95, the issue isn't PalmDesktop, it's USB support.

> If not, can it
> be imported to whatever PocketPC's desktop PIM component is? I know I
> keep saying this, but I'm getting almost pissed enough to consider
> switching to PPC. And, if so will the PPC PIM run on W95?

That's going to depend on how the PPC wants to sync to the desktop.
It's likely that they're USB as well. And, since Windows 95 doesn't
have functional USB support....

> W98SE if not? TIA for any info :) 

If you can upgrade to Windows 98 for a PPC, why not for a Palm?

--
Derek

"Stir, whip, stir, whip, whip, whip, stir. Beat!" - Chef Gormaanda
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 4:38:17 PM

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

In article <wz1Jd.4146$YD5.2873@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
> Had you read the entire thread you would know that "support" in the context
> of this discussion refers to a Palm application being supported on an OS
> that was released 10 years ago. Therefore just because an application,
> written for a current version of the OS, partially runs on an older version
> of the OS does not mean that the developer of that application will provide
> any "support" in the form of patches for that application on the older OS.
>
>

Tony, are you talking about POS 1 or a desktop system OS?

--
Sincerely,
Dennis B. Swaney
Replace "dcsi.net" with "cncnet.com"
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:31:03 AM

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

"Dennis B. Swaney" <romad@dcsi.net> wrote in message
news:romad-FDDAC2.13381724012005@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <wz1Jd.4146$YD5.2873@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>SNIP

>>
>
> Tony, are you talking about POS 1 or a desktop system OS?
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Dennis B. Swaney
> Replace "dcsi.net" with "cncnet.com"

Sorry I should have been more clear, the Palm application is the Palm
Desktop v4.1 which runs on a PC. The Palm OS discussion came about due to a
responder that indicated that Palm supports a 9 year old OS, which in fact
they do not. Granted, as others have pointed out, some POS 1 applications
still run on POS 5. Palm will not make any changes to POS1 (or POS 3 or 4
for that matter) in order to make applications work on them. Support for
those versions of the OS has come and gone.

TC
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:34:09 PM

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

see.my.sig.4.addr@nowhere.com.invalid wrote:

> Just found out OS5.2+ has "upgraded" (read: purposely made incompatible)
> the db's from earlier Palm OS PIM data,

The _purpose_, apparently, was to allow the use of nonvolatile memory, which
to my way of thinking is a worthwhile tradeoff. Are you suggesting that
they should stick with volatile memory forever just to avoid having to make
a format change?

> although I'm unclear on the exact
> extent. Does anybody know about this? Will I be able to still run the
> old Palm Desktop 4.1, or have to "upgrade" that too, possibly making it
> unusable on one computer because you can bet they've purposely made it
> incompatible now with W95 (PD 4.1 still works fine with it).

What would their "purpose" in making it incompatible with Windows 95 be?
Maybe you should consider upgrading? Anything that won't run 98 is pretty
pathetic by contemporary standards and you should be able to find 98 fairly
cheaply.

> If none of
> it works, can the old PIM data be imported to the new PD?

Why would it _not_ be?

> If not, can it
> be imported to whatever PocketPC's desktop PIM component is?

You consider it more likely that Palm would maintain compatibility with a
competing product than with their own?

> I know I
> keep saying this, but I'm getting almost pissed enough to consider
> switching to PPC.

Go for it.

> And, if so will the PPC PIM run on W95?

You mean Outlook? Microsoft says it requires Windows 2000 SP3 or later or
XP.

> W98SE if not?
> TIA for any info :) 
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> For email response, or CC, please mailto:see.my.sig.4.addr(at)bigfoot.com.
> Yeah, it's really a real address :) 

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
!