[Thomas Boehne <TBoehne@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 26 April 2006 09:26, Guy Harris wrote:
> Perhaps Microsoft lied:
>
> 	http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/memory/base/virtualprotect.asp
>
> sure doesn't seem to imply that its functionality is limited on Windows
> OT (95/98/Me) other than not working in the shared region, but allocated
> stuff shouldn't be there.

Well, on 
	http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/memory/base/memory_protection_constants.asp

they list some more restrictions for using VirtualProtect on Windows
9x. But PAGE_NOACCESS should be OK.

> Perhaps, instead of aborting if VirtualProtect() doesn't work, Ethereal
> should just drive on and live with the lack of extra protection.

Running Ethereal without VirtualProtect on 9x might be OK, but I guess
it will sooner or later lead to crashes and bug reports that we cannot
reproduce/fix, since hardly any developer seems to have a development
environment on such a machine.

Regards,
Thomas

-- 
Jäger Computergesteuerte Messtechnik GmbH
Thomas Böhne
Rheinstraße 2-4
64653 Lorsch
Tel.: +49-6251-9632-0