Re: Windows OS and uname; compatability

2011-03-01 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Feb 28 16:49, Fergus wrote: > Thanks to a previous responder I now know that in response to uname: NT-4.0 = NT4 > NT-5.0 = W2000 > NT-5.1 = XP NT-5.2 = Windows 2003 as well as 64 bit XP > NT-6.0 = Vista > NT-6.1 = W7 > > Q1 Can anybody please tell me the corresponding information for W9

Re: Windows OS and uname; compatability

2011-02-28 Thread Charles Wilson
On 2/28/2011 11:49 AM, Fergus wrote: > Thanks to a previous responder I now know that in response to uname: > NT-5.0 = W2000 > NT-5.1 = XP > NT-6.0 = Vista > NT-6.1 = W7 That's very oversimplified, as the links posted by Barry B. will tell you. One thing you CAN do is use /usr/lib/csih/winProd

RE: Windows OS and uname; compatability

2011-02-28 Thread Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]
Fergus sent the following at Monday, February 28, 2011 11:50 AM >Thanks to a previous responder I now know that in response to uname: >NT-5.0 = W2000 NT-5.1 = XP NT-6.0 = Vista NT-6.1 = W7 >Q1 Can anybody please tell me the corresponding information for W98? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sou

Windows OS and uname; compatability

2011-02-28 Thread Fergus
Thanks to a previous responder I now know that in response to uname: NT-5.0 = W2000 NT-5.1 = XP NT-6.0 = Vista NT-6.1 = W7 Q1 Can anybody please tell me the corresponding information for W98? Q2 Are there ways of distinguishing between XP / XP-64, Vista / Vista-64, W7 / W7-64 using uname in Cygw