Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003...
From: "Noel, Andre (6024395)" <andre.noel () bell ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:39:16 +0000
Hello Guy, See what Pascal answered below:
I did a quick test on an old Windows XP box: - a Wireshark development version generated with NMake runs on Windows XP (GTK UI, Qt one triggers the error as expected) - a Wireshark development version generated with CMake does not run on Windows XP => CMake (used to generate the official installers) does not add the compatibility flags allowing to target those old Windows. Windows XP is officially no more supported. We could modify the installer to also check for Windows 2003 Server. Pascal.
Thanks, I would think my best bet is to upgrade those servers to something more recent. Kind regards. -----Original Message----- From: wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-users-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Guy Harris Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 4:32 PM To: Community support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... On Nov 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Noel, Andre (6024395) <andre.noel () bell ca> wrote:
Yes they are 32 bits. I downloaded the 32 bit version. The Wireshark download detected my OS to be a 32 bits and offered the 32 bits. I made sure it was the 32 bits version downloading.
Doesn't work on 32-bit XP either. 1.12.8 works, but the installer indicates that it's not supported; 1.10 is listed as the last release to support XP packages: https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LifeCycle so it's more like "1.12.8 wasn't explicitly set up *not* to support XP, but we don't guarantee it'll work, either". It may be that ensuring that, when building with MSVC, the LINK=/SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS,5.01 argument is passed to the linker may be sufficient to get 2.0, in both GTK+ and Qt forms, working on XP and W2K3 Server. Whether "working" means "launches but runs into problems or some cases", and whether doing so would cause problems with either version on Vista and later, are other issues. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Pascal Quantin (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Pascal Quantin (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Guy Harris (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Guy Harris (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Guy Harris (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Noel, Andre (6024395) (Nov 19)
- Re: Wireshark 2.0 vs Windows Server 2003... Pascal Quantin (Nov 19)