jdk 1.5 and windows 7

[zikester]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I'm trying to install jdk 1.5 EE
on my windows 7 box, and the installer says the platform/patch level
is unsupported. Is there really no way to develop on jdk 1.5 from
Windows 7?

 

[Knute Johnson]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I'm trying to install jdk 1.5 EE
on my windows 7 box, and the installer says the platform/patch level
is unsupported. Is there really no way to develop on jdk 1.5 from
Windows 7?

Java 5 reached its "end of service life" last November. I don't know
for sure that that is your problem but it could be a clue.

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I'm trying to install jdk 1.5 EE
on my windows 7 box, and the installer says the platform/patch level
is unsupported. Is there really no way to develop on jdk 1.5 from
Windows 7?

Make sure you're not mixing x64 installation on a 32bit platform.

I've had no issues running JDK1.5 and JDK1.6 on my windows 7 machine.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I'm trying to install jdk 1.5 EE
on my windows 7 box, and the installer says the platform/patch level
is unsupported. Is there really no way to develop on jdk 1.5 from
Windows 7?

EE ?

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Java 5 reached its "end of service life" last November. I don't know for
sure that that is your problem but it could be a clue.

The free version EOL'ed October 30 2009.

But the version you pay for first EOL June 2014 / June 2019.

As I understand it then the code is same, so unless SUN deliberately
withhold Windows 7 patches for the free version, then it should
have Windows 7 support.

But no need to speculate.

Windows 7 is on the list:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/system-configurations.html

Arne

 

[Knute Johnson]

The free version EOL'ed October 30 2009.

But the version you pay for first EOL June 2014 / June 2019.

As I understand it then the code is same, so unless SUN deliberately
withhold Windows 7 patches for the free version, then it should
have Windows 7 support.

But no need to speculate.

Windows 7 is on the list:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/system-configurations.html

Arne

I didn't know that they had a "pay for it" version.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I didn't know that they had a "pay for it" version.

It is called "Java for Business".

http://www.sun.com/software/javaforbusiness/

I doubt that they have been making much money.

Arne

 

[markspace]

EE ?

Arne

I'm sure he means Enterprise Edition, the new name for J2EE. He just
left out the Java in front of it, since he had JDK there already.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm sure he means Enterprise Edition, the new name for J2EE. He just
left out the Java in front of it, since he had JDK there already.

Maybe.

But does that mean the EE SDK or an appserver ? And what version ? And
does the whatever install include JDK or was that already installed ?

Arne

 

[Roedy Green]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I'm trying to install jdk 1.5 EE
on my windows 7 box, and the installer says the platform/patch level
is unsupported. Is there really no way to develop on jdk 1.5 from
Windows 7?

I develop for JDK 1.5 using JDK 1.6 with the target option.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

I develop for JDK 1.5 using JDK 1.6 with the target option.

Any particular reason why you would target 1.5? It's past End of Service
Life (EOSL). My oldest home computer is like 6 years old and I'm running
the latest 1.6 JDK on it, and also OpenJDK 7. Except for some occasional
dabbling I do with work-related software (pretty arcane stuff) that
still needs JDK 1.4, 99% of what I do is cool with JDK/JRE 1.6.

I'm not into consumer Java nor applets and all that good stuff, so maybe
I'm missing some good technical reasons here for developing to obsolete
Java versions. What would they be? Note I said _technical_ reasons: the
inability or more often the lack of desire of some small percentage of
the user population to properly upgrade just doesn't cut it.

AHS

 

[Roedy Green]

Any particular reason why you would target 1.5?

If I don't need 1.6 features, I code to 1.5 or even 1.1. I intend for
my code to be inserted in other people's code. The lower that number,
the wider the audience for my work.

When you get many different packages interacting, management can
freeze on a JDK (even 1.4!) because they don't want to spend the money
retesting or tweaking.

The CurrCon applet is written to Java 1.1. I don't want to exclude
anyone from seeing the nationalised prices on my website no matter how
ancient their browser's Java.

The less technical my audience, the lower I aim for.

 

[Roedy Green]

Whether any of this applies in Roedy's case, I don't know.

I got a great set of squawks from Mac users when I once migrated an
app up to 1.6. One of them went over my code and pointed out I was
not using any feature past 1.5. I took it back to 1.5.

I think it was the sales tax calculating app. It just does a few
multiplies (multiplys??) and adds wrapped in a GUI shell. The Canadian
version it turns out is my most popular program. It is used by all
kinds of people who have no knowledge of Java. Many of them cannot
upgrade their Java because of corporate rules, corporate control, or
technopeasant terror. They may use some other app that wants a
particular version of Java and they don't want to rock the boat.
Not to mention that the latest Sun Java version is not available for
all platforms.

It is funny how many people can be using an app. You never know until
you do something that screws them up. As long as everything is
working fine, you never hear from users.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

Any particular reason why you would target 1.5?

I can't speak for Roedy, but as a general rule, there is sometimes value
in targeting lower versions of an API, to ensure that specific customers
who can't upgrade can still remain customers.

As an example: on the Mac OS, the only way to get Java 1.6 is to upgrade
to Leopard or higher (OS X 10.5). But not everyone wants to upgrade to
the newer OS version, nor even actually can.
>
As time goes on, the number of people subject to these restrictions does
go down dramatically, and eventually it makes sense to go ahead and move
up in the API version. But even when that happens, for someone
following that strategy, they will typically still be behind the "latest
and greatest". If the customers of concern are using Macs, then there's
no way to move to the most recent Java version, because Apple is always
at least a version behind.

[...] Note I said _technical_ reasons: the
inability or more often the lack of desire of some small percentage of
the user population to properly upgrade just doesn't cut it.

What about some large percentage of the user population? What about if
some customers are more important than others, even if in the minority?
And frankly, if we are talking about someone else's sales, who are you
to tell them how many customers they can afford to cut off, regardless
of reason?

Pete

I know about the situations where you have to cater to a customer's
unwillingness or inability to upgrade an end-user program or server or
database. I bump into them all the time. Usually it's cost - cost to buy
upgraded software or cost to hire developers to upgrade an
application. But rarely have I run across a situation where it was an
issue to upgrade Java, for either cost or technical reasons, which is
why I was asking.

I'll concede that Mac OS X is a legitimate case. I also note that not
many people, percentage-wise, use Mac OS X, and I suspect it's also a
demographic that won't be mired in ancient versions.

As for me telling, I'm not telling Roedy anything. But I do feel that
every developer who unnecessarily provides support for obsolete software
versions is doing everyone else - other developers and consumers - a
disfavour. Which is why I was asking. If he actually has a niche target
market that truly for some arcane reason cannot upgrade to 1.6, then
he's got a good reason.

Final note: you mentioned certification reasons. Sure, I'll buy that.
But it strikes me that customers who are concerned about certification
should also be concerned about running on obsolete software. Sometimes
it's a hard sell, because God love them, customers fear change, but
eventually they can be convinced.

AHS

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

If I don't need 1.6 features, I code to 1.5 or even 1.1. I intend for
my code to be inserted in other people's code. The lower that number,
the wider the audience for my work.

When you get many different packages interacting, management can
freeze on a JDK (even 1.4!) because they don't want to spend the money
retesting or tweaking.

The CurrCon applet is written to Java 1.1. I don't want to exclude
anyone from seeing the nationalised prices on my website no matter how
ancient their browser's Java.

The less technical my audience, the lower I aim for.

Fair enough, I guess. We're talking different audiences, clearly. I
still don't entirely agree with you - personally I'd be influencing
those people with ancient Java to upgrade or go without - but that's
just me.

I get a bit hot under the collar when the issue of coding to obsolete
software comes up. It's a hindrance, sometimes a serious hindrance, in
development of good enterprise software. I still have to support J2EE
1.4 and JDK 1.4 apps when the clients to a man have no good reason not
to upgrade. The vendors, despite public utterances, do not want to
support the old stuff, and quite frankly neither do most enterprise
developers.

And I don't understand your last sentence at all. Why does the technical
ability of your audience dictate software versions? Seems to me that the
least technical would actually appreciate modern versions, not obsolete
ones. Just because you're not using *language features* from later
versions is no good reason to use old versions that lack a whole bunch
of improvements in all areas. Would you deliberately write web pages
that are optimized for IE6 and thereby connive at keeping that disaster
alive? No, you wouldn't...so why adopt a similar approach with Java?

Personally if I run into non-technical clients that are using old J2SE
and old J2EE, I educate them as to why they should move with the times.
That's part of my job description - I'm not helping them out by letting
them use obsolete stuff. Just my opinion.

AHS

 

[Roedy Green]

Why does the technical
ability of your audience dictate software versions?

Imagine trying to explain to your mother that she needed to upgrade
her Java. Even if you gave keystroke by keystroke instructions, it
would be like asking her to skydive. It would just terrify her.

There are a big class of people who never upgrade software. They just
buy a new computer every decade or so and start over from scratch.

This is one reason I am a big fan of self-upgrading software. Yes is
has potential to screw up, but that balances the problems of never
upgrading.

I think how often I have to use my technical abilities to patch the
registry, delete files etc to clean up after failed installs. For
that class of person, if the install failed they would have to live
with the effects until they bought a new computer. No wonder they are
so loathe to change anything.

Some people live in rural areas where there is no help, even for
inflated prices.

I have yet to experiment with remote control software for such
problems. The catch is, the computer has to remain bootable and
capable at least of running the remote control software or you are
hosed.

 

[Roedy Green]

I bump into them all the time. Usually it's cost - cost to buy
upgraded software or cost to hire developers to upgrade an
application.

I am a bit compulsive about upgrading the very day any new version
comes out. I even wrote a program to probe the websites of all the
software I use to keep tabs on updates. see
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/products1.html#VERCHECK

However, I noticed that often a simple upgrade can trigger almost a
day of fiddling about adjusting to the new version. Its "better" in
the end, but from a business person's perspective, the minor
improvements can't really be justified. "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it".

I do it anyway motivated by curiosity, and because I write so many
emails to authors telling them how to improve their programs and to
report bugs. I can't very well do that if I am not using their latest
version and keep all related software up to date.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

Imagine trying to explain to your mother that she needed to upgrade
her Java. Even if you gave keystroke by keystroke instructions, it
would be like asking her to skydive. It would just terrify her.

It's not a pretty picture, and that's contemplating that vision for both
my parents.

There are a big class of people who never upgrade software. They just
buy a new computer every decade or so and start over from scratch.

This is one reason I am a big fan of self-upgrading software. Yes is
has potential to screw up, but that balances the problems of never
upgrading.

I think how often I have to use my technical abilities to patch the
registry, delete files etc to clean up after failed installs. For
that class of person, if the install failed they would have to live
with the effects until they bought a new computer. No wonder they are
so loathe to change anything.

Some people live in rural areas where there is no help, even for
inflated prices.

Very true - almost all of my better half's extended family lives in the
Annapolis Valley, and none of them are about to dial up a Geek
Squad-like outfit from Halifax.

I have yet to experiment with remote control software for such
problems. The catch is, the computer has to remain bootable and
capable at least of running the remote control software or you are
hosed.

I must admit, you make good points. I sort of operate as a technical
resource for friends and family, and I'm sure a lot of us technical
types are in the same boat. Having said that, I can't remember the last
time I personally had a problem with a JDK or JRE install or upgrade,
and I do it routinely on Linux (a number of distros), Windows (XP and 7
right now), Mac OS X (10.5 and 10.6 recently), and occasionally on
Solaris. I've had to sweat considerably more over some game
installations on Windows, or re-fixing GPG for Mail every time Mac OS X
upgrades, but not Java.

So my question is a very specific one concerning Java only, not programs
in general.

On a related note, the irony is that for all of the folks we are
describing here, life would be so much easier for them if they actually
upgraded religiously, applied patches, ran their diagnostics and acted
on the results, etc etc. I don't think that there is necessarily an
issue if people only buy a new computer every 10 years - I've stretched
out secondary boxes that long with no significant problems. Rather, it's
all about OS and applications software maintenance.

And no argument from me that all of us on the technical front could make
life easier for consumers.

AHS

 

[Mike Schilling]

As for me telling, I'm not telling Roedy anything. But I do feel that
every developer who unnecessarily provides support for obsolete
software versions is doing everyone else - other developers and
consumers - a disfavour. Which is why I was asking. If he actually
has a niche target market that truly for some arcane reason cannot
upgrade to 1.6, then he's got a good reason.

If you want to tell a Fortune 500 company that in your opinion they need to
upgrade their production appservers to the newest version, feel free.
Unless they take your advice, be prepared to continue to support Java 1.4.
(As of a couple years ago, 1.3, but that's no longer a requirement (for me
at least))

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

If you want to tell a Fortune 500 company that in your opinion they need to
upgrade their production appservers to the newest version, feel free.
Unless they take your advice, be prepared to continue to support Java 1.4.
(As of a couple years ago, 1.3, but that's no longer a requirement (for me
at least))

Lucky !

Arne