RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
I find that KB article confusing - it confirms that Server 2008 can do LM authentication, and that it uses the registry key to control what authentication is accepted . We've had group policy in place for ages (possibly ever since we went to Active Directory) that does what that KB suggests (allows LanMan authentication, but tries to negotiate NTLM and NTLMv2) I've verified that the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA\LMCompatibilityLevel is set to 0 or 1 (depending on the group policy setting), but yet it will not authenticate. I notice that the KB article says only Server 2008 not Server 2008 R2 (Or Windows 7). I wonder if MS completely eliminated LanMan authentication compatibility on Server 2008 R2? I don't recall ever reading this in any of the release notes or planning guides. Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs Given the business situation, it would seem that you have the choice between the following: -- Upgrading to 2008R2, and not authenticating the Win95 systems at all (as it is not supported) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954387 -- Leaving the Win2K3 DCs in place ASB http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market... On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.commailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com wrote: I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC - even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x *might* be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. Here's what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) Enabled Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change Disabled Network security: LAN Manager authentication level Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 Enabled Any suggestions? Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499tel:812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
Here are some articles that outline changes to NTLM in 2008r2 (and Win7) - http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46922 - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd566199(WS.10).aspx NTLM is supported, so long as 128-bit encryption is enabled, which might not be true of older OSes. * * *ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market… * On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.comwrote: I find that KB article confusing - it confirms that Server 2008 can do LM authentication, and that it uses the registry key to control what authentication is accepted . We’ve had group policy in place for ages (possibly ever since we went to Active Directory) that does what that KB suggests (allows LanMan authentication, but tries to negotiate NTLM and NTLMv2) ** ** I’ve verified that the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA\LMCompatibilityLevel is set to 0 or 1 (depending on the group policy setting), but yet it will not authenticate. ** ** I notice that the KB article says only “Server 2008” not “Server 2008 R2” (Or Windows 7). I wonder if MS completely eliminated LanMan authentication compatibility on Server 2008 R2? I don’t recall ever reading this in any of the release notes or planning guides. ** ** Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ** ** *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:24 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs ** ** Given the business situation, it would seem that you have the choice between the following: -- Upgrading to 2008R2, and not authenticating the Win95 systems at all (as it is not supported) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954387 -- Leaving the Win2K3 DCs in place ** ** *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…* On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.com wrote: I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC – even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x **might** be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. Here’s what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) *Enabled* Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change *Disabled* Network security: LAN Manager authentication level *Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated* Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 *Enabled* *** * Any suggestions? Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ** ** ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
Do they have to auth against the domain? Don Guyer Windows Systems Engineer RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2 Enterprise Technology Group Fiserv don.gu...@fiserv.com Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673 Fax: 610-233-0404 www.fiserv.com http://www.fiserv.com/ From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC - even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x *might* be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. Here's what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) Enabled Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change Disabled Network security: LAN Manager authentication level Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 Enabled Any suggestions? Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadminimage001.jpg
RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
It is preferable to have them authenticate to the domain, but I might be able to convince them to authenticate to a local account on the file server they hit. The problem is that I assume whenever the file server gets upgraded to Server 2008 R2, the same problem will occur. Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. From: Guyer, Don [mailto:don.gu...@fiserv.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:55 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs Do they have to auth against the domain? Don Guyer Windows Systems Engineer RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2 Enterprise Technology Group Fiserv don.gu...@fiserv.com Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673 Fax: 610-233-0404 www.fiserv.comhttp://www.fiserv.com/ [cid:image001.jpg@01CC5C14.326409E0] From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC - even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x *might* be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. Here's what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) Enabled Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change Disabled Network security: LAN Manager authentication level Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 Enabled Any suggestions? Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmininline: image001.jpg
Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
We're looking at a similar issue. It sounds like a kludge, but I'm considering setting up a file server running SAMBA, just for those machines, and using local accounts on the SAMBA box. I'm even thinking about not joining the SAMBA box to the domain, but backing it up using a cron job that copies data to the main file server. Kurt On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:58, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.comwrote: It is preferable to have them authenticate to the domain, but I might be able to convince them to authenticate to a local account on the file server they hit. The problem is that I assume whenever the file server gets upgraded to Server 2008 R2, the same problem will occur. ** ** Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ** ** *From:* Guyer, Don [mailto:don.gu...@fiserv.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:55 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs ** ** Do they “have to” auth against the domain? ** ** *Don Guyer* Windows Systems Engineer RIM Operations Engineering Distributed – A Team, Tier 2 Enterprise Technology Group *Fiserv* don.gu...@fiserv.com Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673 Fax: 610-233-0404 www.fiserv.com [image: Description: Frog Signature] ** ** *From:* Ken Cornetet [mailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:51 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs ** ** I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. ** ** I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC – even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). ** ** OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x **might** be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. ** ** Here’s what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) *Enabled* Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change *Disabled* Network security: LAN Manager authentication level *Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated* Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 *Enabled* *** * ** ** Any suggestions? ** ** Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ** ** ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadminimage001.jpg
RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
I am kinda familiar with how touchy of a situation this is. Back in the day during the Y2k craze, we did some work for an engine shop that was a supplier for NASCAR. One of them being the station that controlled the huge CNC machine that cranked out the heads from a block of aluminum. There was a lot of teeth clenching and breath holding that day! J Don Guyer Windows Systems Engineer RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2 Enterprise Technology Group Fiserv don.gu...@fiserv.com Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673 Fax: 610-233-0404 www.fiserv.com http://www.fiserv.com/ From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:59 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs It is preferable to have them authenticate to the domain, but I might be able to convince them to authenticate to a local account on the file server they hit. The problem is that I assume whenever the file server gets upgraded to Server 2008 R2, the same problem will occur. Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. From: Guyer, Don [mailto:don.gu...@fiserv.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:55 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs Do they have to auth against the domain? Don Guyer Windows Systems Engineer RIM Operations Engineering Distributed - A Team, Tier 2 Enterprise Technology Group Fiserv don.gu...@fiserv.com Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673 Fax: 610-233-0404 www.fiserv.com http://www.fiserv.com/ From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC - even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x *might* be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. Here's what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) Enabled Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change Disabled Network security: LAN Manager authentication level Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 Enabled Any suggestions? Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadminimage001.jpg
Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
Given the business situation, it would seem that you have the choice between the following: -- Upgrading to 2008R2, and not authenticating the Win95 systems at all (as it is not supported) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954387 -- Leaving the Win2K3 DCs in place * * *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market… * On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.comwrote: I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. ** ** I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC – even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). ** ** OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x **might** be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. ** ** Here’s what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) *Enabled* Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change *Disabled* Network security: LAN Manager authentication level *Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated* Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 *Enabled* *** * ** ** Any suggestions? ** ** Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ** ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
Could you not P2V the Win95 boxes and run them as virtual guests of some type on an XP workstation with autologon configured on the 95 guests? Although this may defeat the point of having them authenticate in the first place... Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment -Original Message- From: Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:24:28 To: NT System Admin Issuesntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Reply-To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs Given the business situation, it would seem that you have the choice between the following: -- Upgrading to 2008R2, and not authenticating the Win95 systems at all (as it is not supported) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954387 -- Leaving the Win2K3 DCs in place * * *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market… * On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.comwrote: I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. ** ** I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC – even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). ** ** OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x **might** be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. ** ** Here’s what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) *Disabled * Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) *Enabled* Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change *Disabled* Network security: LAN Manager authentication level *Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated* Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 *Enabled* *** * ** ** Any suggestions? ** ** Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ** ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
That's not going to change the lack of authentication between Win95 and a 2008R2 DC. * * *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market… * On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM, kz2...@googlemail.com wrote: ** Could you not P2V the Win95 boxes and run them as virtual guests of some type on an XP workstation with autologon configured on the 95 guests? Although this may defeat the point of having them authenticate in the first place... Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment -- *From: * Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com *Date: *Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:24:28 -0400 *To: *NT System Admin Issuesntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com *ReplyTo: * NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com *Subject: *Re: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs Given the business situation, it would seem that you have the choice between the following: -- Upgrading to 2008R2, and not authenticating the Win95 systems at all (as it is not supported) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954387 -- Leaving the Win2K3 DCs in place * * *ASB* *http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker* *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market… * On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ken Cornetet ken.corne...@kimball.comwrote: I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. ** ** I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC – even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). ** ** OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x **might** be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. ** ** Here’s what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) * Disabled* Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) * Disabled* Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) *Enabled* Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change *Disabled* Network security: LAN Manager authentication level *Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated* Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 *Enabled* ** ** ** ** Any suggestions? ** ** Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs
Could you P2V one of the Win95 machines and install the AD client extension on it as a test to see if it works? Back when I had Win 95 machines on a 2003 domain I ended up installing it on all the win9x machines with good success. Alternately, and this is kind of a kludgey (is that a word?), assuming your forest is at Windows 2003 functional level, could you create a new Win 2003 Domain Controller in its own domain, create a 2 way trust between your existing domain and the new domain, and have the two Win 95 computers log into the new domain? From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:ken.corne...@kimball.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: WIndows 95 and Server 2008 R2 DCs I have some Windows 95 computers authenticating against my domain. Currently, the domain is running on Server 2003 DCs, but I am in the process of upgrading to Server 2008 R2 DCs. I have already started to deploy Server 2008 DCs. I have one location that has a couple of Windows 95 computers, and they cannot authenticate against a Server 2008 R2 DC - even with what I think is the appropriate group policy (the same policy allows the Windows 95 machines to authenticate against Server 2003 DCs). OK, I know, Windows 95. But, these are used as controllers in some multi-million dollar machinery that was purchased long ago from a company that is now defunct. Replacing this equipment is simply not an option. Upgrading the OS is not an option. Installing the AD client extension for Windows 9x *might* be an option, but only as a last resort. The factory guys who maintain this equipment obviously do not like to stir the soup, because the apparently only human left on earth who can support this equipment charges 5 figures to just answer the phone. Here's what I have in the Default Domain Controller Policy: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) Disabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees) Enabled Network security: Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change Disabled Network security: LAN Manager authentication level Send LM NTLM - use NTLMv2 session security if negotiated Allow cryptography algorithms compatible with Windows NT 4.0 Enabled Any suggestions? Ken Cornetet 812.482.8499 To err is human - to moo, bovine. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: Windows 95.
Hmmm We are still running dos! Nigel Parker Systems Engineer Ultraframe (UK) Ltd Tel: 01200 452329 Fax: 01200 452201 Web: www.ultraframe.com Email: mailto:nigel.par...@ultraframe.co.uk Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Ultraframe design and manufacture innovative and quality conservatory solutions to suit all styles, all applications, all consumers and every price point. By demonstrating our company values of innovation, integrity, total quality, premium service and customer first, we will to continue to build our position as UK market leader. For more information visit our website: www.ultraframe.co.uk The statements and opinions expressed in this email are my own and may not represent those of Ultraframe (UK) Ltd. This email is subject to copyright and the information contained in it is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: 26 August 2010 03:27 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Zzz...huh...what's dead? Who said that?...where am I?...who are you people?oh...nevermind. Zz JIM Jim Holmgren Manager of Server Engineering XLHealth Corporation The Warehouse at Camden Yards 351 West Camden Street, Suite 100 Baltimore, MD 21201 410.625.2200 (main) 443.524.8573 (direct) 443-506.2400 (cell) www.xlhealth.com -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: It's dead, Jim Damn it, Jim, I'm a sysadmin, not a miracle worker! -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este facsímile, incluyendo lo adjunto, es para el uso exclusivo del destinatario(s) y puede contener información confidencial y/o información protegida de salud. En virtud de la Ley Federal (HIPAA), el destinatario tiene la obligación de mantener esta información segura y confidencial. Cualquier divulgación a terceros sin la autorización de los miembros de lo permitido por la ley está prohibido y penado en virtud de la Ley Federal. Si usted no es el destinatario, por favor, póngase en contacto con el remitente por teléfono y destruir todas las copias del mensaje original ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
You make a grown man cry! Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote on 08/25/2010 03:55:34 PM: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Nope. I still have one machine that's running it only because I have just one application that refuses to run on anything else. *sigh*. From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:05 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. I thought it was dead. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
You don't happen to work around the Chicago area do you? I just heard a similar story from my brother-in-law. -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
You make a grown man cry! Andy Shook andy.sh...@peak10.com wrote on 08/26/2010 08:02:33 AM: I wonder if anybody cares?. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers? it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase? I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman?s ?Windows 95 Undocumented? around? -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
When that song was dissected during the product launch, there was some d...@mn funny commentary... You, you make a dead man come as well... -sc From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. You make a grown man cry! Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote on 08/25/2010 03:55:34 PM: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
I FINALLY let go and just threw out the Win 95 floppies that I had kept. J Don Guyer Systems Engineer - Information Services Prudential, Fox Roach/Trident Group 431 W. Lancaster Avenue Devon, PA 19333 Direct: (610) 993-3299 Fax: (610) 650-5306 don.gu...@prufoxroach.com mailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.com wrote: Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. ... Then a few months ago the interface board died. You don't happen to work around the Chicago area do you? I just heard a similar story from my brother-in-law. Nope, New England. This sort of thing is a lot more common than some people apparently think. :) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
That leaves Shooky Baby out of this then. J Webster From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] Subject: Re: Windows 95. You make a grown man cry! ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
It's because Shooky doesn't reciprocate. -sc From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. You make a grown man cry! Andy Shook andy.sh...@peak10.com wrote on 08/26/2010 08:02:33 AM: I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You're mean. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
And you're average. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You're mean. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
But do you have the wi-fi's ? From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You're mean. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este facsímile, incluyendo lo adjunto, es para el uso exclusivo del destinatario(s) y puede contener información confidencial y/o información protegida de salud. En virtud de la Ley Federal (HIPAA), el destinatario tiene la obligación de mantener esta información segura y confidencial. Cualquier divulgación a terceros sin la autorización de los miembros de lo permitido por la ley está prohibido y penado en virtud de la Ley Federal. Si usted no es el destinatario, por favor, póngase en contacto con el remitente por teléfono y destruir todas las copias del mensaje original ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
The wi-fi's what? On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Jim Holmgren jholmg...@xlhealth.comwrote: But do you have the wi-fi’s ? *From:* Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:29 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Windows 95. Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You’re mean. Shook *From:* Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Windows 95. Don’t hate just because “technical talk” scares you. -sc *From:* Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares…. Shook *From:* Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers… it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase… I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman’s “Windows 95 Undocumented” around… -sc *From:* Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir información confidencial y/o información de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario está obligado a mantener la información confidencial y sequra. HIPAA prohíbe y castiga cualquier divulgación a terceras personas sin autorización del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Just the wi-fi's - it is what makes the iPhone4 the best phone. From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. The wi-fi's what? On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Jim Holmgren jholmg...@xlhealth.com wrote: But do you have the wi-fi's ? From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You're mean. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir información confidencial y/o información de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario está obligado a mantener la información confidencial y sequra. HIPAA prohíbe y castiga cualquier divulgación a terceras personas sin autorización del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este facsímile, incluyendo lo adjunto, es para el uso exclusivo del destinatario(s) y puede contener información confidencial y/o información protegida de salud. En virtud de la Ley Federal (HIPAA), el destinatario tiene la obligación de mantener esta información segura y confidencial. Cualquier divulgación a terceros sin la autorización de los miembros de lo permitido por la ley está prohibido y penado en virtud de la Ley Federal. Si usted no es el destinatario, por favor, póngase en contacto con el remitente por teléfono y destruir todas las copias del mensaje original ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
I don't care From: Jim Holmgren [mailto:jholmg...@xlhealth.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:39 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Just the wi-fi's - it is what makes the iPhone4 the best phone. From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. The wi-fi's what? On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Jim Holmgren jholmg...@xlhealth.commailto:jholmg...@xlhealth.com wrote: But do you have the wi-fi's ? From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.commailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You're mean. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.commailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.commailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.commailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.usmailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir información confidencial y/o información de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario está obligado a mantener la información confidencial y sequra. HIPAA prohíbe y castiga cualquier divulgación a terceras personas sin autorización del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir información confidencial y/o información de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario está obligado a mantener la información confidencial y sequra. HIPAA prohíbe y castiga cualquier divulgación a terceras personas sin autorización del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use
RE: Windows 95.
My cat is now homeless. From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I don't care From: Jim Holmgren [mailto:jholmg...@xlhealth.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:39 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Just the wi-fi's - it is what makes the iPhone4 the best phone. From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. The wi-fi's what? On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Jim Holmgren jholmg...@xlhealth.com wrote: But do you have the wi-fi's ? From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hey! I can talk mega-rams and 1.21 gigawatts as good as anyone. You're mean. Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Don't hate just because technical talk scares you. -sc From: Andy Shook [mailto:andy.sh...@peak10.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I wonder if anybody cares Shook From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir información confidencial y/o información de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario está obligado a mantener la información confidencial y sequra. HIPAA prohíbe y castiga cualquier divulgación a terceras personas sin autorización del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir información confidencial y/o información de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario está obligado a mantener la información confidencial y sequra. HIPAA prohíbe y castiga cualquier divulgación a terceras personas sin autorización del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability
RE: Windows 95.
Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
Good God. I've only got eight 2003 R2 systems left to upgrade, and three XP workstations. On 26 August 2010 14:55, Holstrom, Don dholst...@nbm.org wrote: Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ -- On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:54 AM, James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com wrote: Good God. I've only got eight 2003 R2 systems left to upgrade, and three XP workstations. IBM mainframe systems are well-known for having programs written in assembler in the 1960s still in production. We PC people have no sense of scale. ;-) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
I still have a set or two in the safe across the room, boy do I need to clean that out. From: Don Guyer [mailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I FINALLY let go and just threw out the Win 95 floppies that I had kept. :) Don Guyer Systems Engineer - Information Services Prudential, Fox Roach/Trident Group 431 W. Lancaster Avenue Devon, PA 19333 Direct: (610) 993-3299 Fax: (610) 650-5306 don.gu...@prufoxroach.commailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
The cardboard floppy box I was carrying around in my laptop bag, for probably 10+ years, literally fell apart in my hands when I took it out, so I figured it was time to send them off to the next world. Don Guyer Systems Engineer - Information Services Prudential, Fox Roach/Trident Group 431 W. Lancaster Avenue Devon, PA 19333 Direct: (610) 993-3299 Fax: (610) 650-5306 don.gu...@prufoxroach.com mailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I still have a set or two in the safe across the room, boy do I need to clean that out. From: Don Guyer [mailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. I FINALLY let go and just threw out the Win 95 floppies that I had kept. J Don Guyer Systems Engineer - Information Services Prudential, Fox Roach/Trident Group 431 W. Lancaster Avenue Devon, PA 19333 Direct: (610) 993-3299 Fax: (610) 650-5306 don.gu...@prufoxroach.com From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Egads. For all the kludge it was under the covers... it is what introduced the Win32 API to the masses, and ultimately paved the way for XP which unified the Windows families on the NT kernel codebase... I wonder if I still have my copy of Andrew Schulman's Windows 95 Undocumented around... -sc From: Terry Dickson [mailto:te...@treasurer.state.ks.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
I know someone that still has a 98 machine. Every now and then he will call me to fix some issue with it. His calls just go to my voice mall ;-) -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:18 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.com wrote: Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. ... Then a few months ago the interface board died. You don't happen to work around the Chicago area do you? I just heard a similar story from my brother-in-law. Nope, New England. This sort of thing is a lot more common than some people apparently think. :) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Our NEC Electra voicemail system is DOS based. Not a very large image either. The hard disk is 1.2gb, out of which maybe a hundred megabytes is used. I have an image of it, but the bummer is that the mainboard is picky about hard disk size. I procured a 8gb PATA SSD that I thought would work in its place. But the system won't boot that drive. To make matters worse, the serial port seems jacked. You can sorta see some of the POST text being spit out to the terminal, but its terribly noisy. So no chance of getting into the BIOS to check drive type (it's so old it might not be using LBA for all I know) Phillip Partipilo Parametric Solutions Inc. Jupiter, Florida (561) 747-6107 -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Phillip Partipilo p...@psnet.com wrote: Our NEC Electra voicemail system is DOS based. ... I have an image of it, but the bummer is that the mainboard is picky about hard disk size. One thing going for you is that DOS stuff largely didn't care about motherboard variations. If the wacky add-on cards it doubtless has are compatible with more modern systems (you know, like a Pentium III grin), you can prolly move it to a new mobo. That's the only reason I was able to keep that Win 3.x system alive as long as I did. As long as the VGA card was compatible nothing cared what I changed. Later versions of Windows do not react nearly as well to a change in motherboard. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail
Let me guess... ActiveVoice Repartee? You can still source dialogic boards, by the way... http://www.voxeo.com/dialogic/ Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information that it contains. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Our Voicemail machine is an NEC NEAXMail AD-40 Repartee system running on a Dell Optiplex G1. Fortunately, there is a monitor hooked up to the system, so I can see the boot messages, etc. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:p...@psnet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our NEC Electra voicemail system is DOS based. Not a very large image either. The hard disk is 1.2gb, out of which maybe a hundred megabytes is used. I have an image of it, but the bummer is that the mainboard is picky about hard disk size. I procured a 8gb PATA SSD that I thought would work in its place. But the system won't boot that drive. To make matters worse, the serial port seems jacked. You can sorta see some of the POST text being spit out to the terminal, but its terribly noisy. So no chance of getting into the BIOS to check drive type (it's so old it might not be using LBA for all I know) Phillip Partipilo Parametric Solutions Inc. Jupiter, Florida (561) 747-6107 -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail
Yep. Repartee indeed. :-) As for the Dialogic cards, yes, you can get them, but do they still make them in ISA??? I'm not sure if the card slots in this computer are PCI or ISA. It's an old Optiplex G1, no X in there anywhere... -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:11 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Let me guess... ActiveVoice Repartee? You can still source dialogic boards, by the way... http://www.voxeo.com/dialogic/ Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information that it contains. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
We have a lot of Oce 3165/2050/1055 printers that have a PC attached to them, they all run OS/2. Thankfully we don't have to do anything with them, but it's fun when there is a power failure, facilities won't put them on the UPS circuit. Regards Tony Patton Desktop Support Analyst - Cavan Ext 8078 Direct Dial 049 435 2878 email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com From: John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Date: 26/08/2010 15:44 Subject:RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents should not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration), unless otherwise specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure, QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration) is not responsible for the contents of this message nor responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and outbound e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of any software viruses. QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration) is regulated by the Financial Regulator and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK business. QUINN-Insurance Limited (Under Administration) is registered in Ireland, registration number 240768 and is a private company limited by shares. Its head office is at Dublin Road, Cavan, Co. Cavan. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail
We're running our Repartee on a G1 tower as well. The Optiplex G1 has both ISA and PCI slots. http://support.dell.com/support/systemsinfo/document.aspx?c=usl=ens=hea~file=/systems/ddur/specs.htm The voicemail you have actually has an option for email integration...pretty snazzy for circa 2000. Are you using that feature? By the way, if you ever need any OS/2 support, call this guy: http://www.blondeguy.com/os2map.html I've called him before for some remote support and it was worth every penny. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Yep. Repartee indeed. :-) As for the Dialogic cards, yes, you can get them, but do they still make them in ISA??? I'm not sure if the card slots in this computer are PCI or ISA. It's an old Optiplex G1, no X in there anywhere... -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:11 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Let me guess... ActiveVoice Repartee? You can still source dialogic boards, by the way... http://www.voxeo.com/dialogic/ Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information that it contains. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient
Re: Windows 95.
Not as dead as you might think. We have (2) Mitsubishi Lasers we purchased within the last 3 years and guess what they use on the controls for these $800,000 machines? Windows 95 :-( -- Bob Hartung Wisco Industries, Inc. 736 Janesville St. Oregon, WI 53575 Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215 Fax: (608) 835-7399 e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com _ From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] Sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:15:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Windows 95. It's dead, Jim -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Sent from my Motorola Droid On Aug 25, 2010 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail
Nope. I was not aware that it had email integration available. As for the OS/2, I'll keep that handy. Hopefully I never will need help, but you never know. :-) -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail We're running our Repartee on a G1 tower as well. The Optiplex G1 has both ISA and PCI slots. http://support.dell.com/support/systemsinfo/document.aspx?c=usl=ens=hea~f ile=/systems/ddur/specs.htm The voicemail you have actually has an option for email integration...pretty snazzy for circa 2000. Are you using that feature? By the way, if you ever need any OS/2 support, call this guy: http://www.blondeguy.com/os2map.html I've called him before for some remote support and it was worth every penny. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Yep. Repartee indeed. :-) As for the Dialogic cards, yes, you can get them, but do they still make them in ISA??? I'm not sure if the card slots in this computer are PCI or ISA. It's an old Optiplex G1, no X in there anywhere... -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:11 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Let me guess... ActiveVoice Repartee? You can still source dialogic boards, by the way... http://www.voxeo.com/dialogic/ Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information that it contains. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message
RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail
Enjoy! http://www.atelcommunications.com/pdf/Neaxmail%20AD-40%20User%20Guide.pdf http://accessfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/QUQtNDAucGRm.pdf http://www.aurora.edu/student-life/resources/its//pbx/AD-40_Vmail.pdf Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:43 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Nope. I was not aware that it had email integration available. As for the OS/2, I'll keep that handy. Hopefully I never will need help, but you never know. :-) -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail We're running our Repartee on a G1 tower as well. The Optiplex G1 has both ISA and PCI slots. http://support.dell.com/support/systemsinfo/document.aspx?c=usl=ens=hea~f ile=/systems/ddur/specs.htm The voicemail you have actually has an option for email integration...pretty snazzy for circa 2000. Are you using that feature? By the way, if you ever need any OS/2 support, call this guy: http://www.blondeguy.com/os2map.html I've called him before for some remote support and it was worth every penny. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Yep. Repartee indeed. :-) As for the Dialogic cards, yes, you can get them, but do they still make them in ISA??? I'm not sure if the card slots in this computer are PCI or ISA. It's an old Optiplex G1, no X in there anywhere... -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:11 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Hijack - OS/2 voicemail Let me guess... ActiveVoice Repartee? You can still source dialogic boards, by the way... http://www.voxeo.com/dialogic/ Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our voicemail system runs on OS/2. Fortunately, I have an image of the hard drive, should it ever crash. Of course, if the Dialogic boards ever die, we're up a creek. :-) -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Windows 95. Our old phone system still runs on DOS. I've been sweating this for years... -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ Any medical information contained in this electronic message is CONFIDENTIAL and privileged. It is unlawful for unauthorized persons to view, copy, disclose, or disseminate CONFIDENTIAL information. This electronic message may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify
Re: Windows 95.
Yep, and 386 and 486 processors are still used in various embedded roles. I'm fine with that (to some extent -- printers are networked, and thus can create network vulnerabilities). I just don't want to deal with it on a direct basis. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * Signature powered by http://www.wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=extensionutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=footer WiseStamphttp://www.wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=extensionutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=footer On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Bob Hartung bhart...@wiscoind.com wrote: Not as dead as you might think. We have (2) Mitsubishi Lasers we purchased within the last 3 years and guess what they use on the controls for these $800,000 machines? Windows 95 :-( -- Bob Hartung Wisco Industries, Inc. 736 Janesville St. Oregon, WI 53575 Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215 Fax: (608) 835-7399 e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com -- *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] *To:* NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com ] *Sent:* Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:15:47 -0500 *Subject:* Re: Windows 95. It's dead, Jim -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Sent from my Motorola Droid On Aug 25, 2010 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
I just had a lady call me to fix her Win98 box. Apparently her $5000 embroidery machine came with software that doesn't run on anything newer. Of course they make newer embroidery machines she could buy that has newer software for another $5K. -- Mike Gill From: Bob Hartung [mailto:bhart...@wiscoind.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. Not as dead as you might think. We have (2) Mitsubishi Lasers we purchased within the last 3 years and guess what they use on the controls for these $800,000 machines? Windows 95 :-( -- Bob Hartung Wisco Industries, Inc. 736 Janesville St. Oregon, WI 53575 Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215 Fax: (608) 835-7399 e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com _ From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] Sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:15:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Windows 95. It's dead, Jim -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Sent from my Motorola Droid On Aug 25, 2010 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
I thought it was dead. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.uswrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
it is seems like yesterday that I was invited to the 95 (Chicago) beta. If I remember correctly the first 2 or 3 beta versions were shipped to us on Floppies, and then by the final they were shipping CD's to those of us that could afford cd rom drives. How times have changed. - Original Message - From: Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:55 PM Subject: Windows 95. Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
On 25 Aug 2010 at 17:05, Jonathan Link wrote: I thought it was dead. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. -- Angus Scott-Fleming GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona 1-520-290-5038 Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
My sympathies. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming angu...@geoapps.comwrote: On 25 Aug 2010 at 17:05, Jonathan Link wrote: I thought it was dead. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. -- Angus Scott-Fleming GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona 1-520-290-5038 Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
Wow. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Jonathan Link jonathan.l...@gmail.comwrote: My sympathies. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Angus Scott-Fleming angu...@geoapps.comwrote: On 25 Aug 2010 at 17:05, Jonathan Link wrote: I thought it was dead. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. -- Angus Scott-Fleming GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona 1-520-290-5038 Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
It's dead, Jim -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Sent from my Motorola Droid On Aug 25, 2010 4:55 PM, Terry Dickson te...@treasurer.state.ks.us wrote: Hey for all of you who missed this like me, Happy Belated Birthday to Windows 95. It turned 15 yesterday. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Windows 95.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: It's dead, Jim Damn it, Jim, I'm a sysadmin, not a miracle worker! -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Windows 95.
Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is. -yoda -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Windows 95. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote: I still have one dinosaur running an app on W9x that won't run on NT-or-newer. Can this be virtualized somehow or other, or are you scavenging eBay even now for parts? Until a few months ago, we had a measurement system in production that was still running Win 3.x. It had some custom interface card and software, the origin of which had been lost in the mists of time. Card was ISA; system didn't work under anything newer than 3.x. Years ago I saw what was coming and started squirreling away spare parts for that system, as we retried old computers. It got to the point where I had literally replaced every single part (mobo, PSU, VGA, HDD) at least once due to failures. Then a few months ago the interface board died. I can't say I was sad. (We're now running a new system with new software and COTS hardware.) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
