If you have host keys available in the common \i\c{known_hosts} format,
we have a script called
-\W{http://svn.tartarus.org/putty/contrib/kh2reg.py?view=markup}\c{kh2reg.py}
+\W{http://svn.tartarus.org/sgt/putty/contrib/kh2reg.py?view=markup}\c{kh2reg.py}
to convert them to a Windows .REG file, which can be installed ahead of
time by double-clicking or using \c{REGEDIT}.
\S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist?
Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on full Win32
-systems and Unix. \q{Win32} includes Windows 95, 98, and ME, and it
-includes Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Vista.
+systems and Unix. \q{\i{Win32}} includes versions of Windows from
+Windows 95 onwards (as opposed to the 16-bit Windows 3.1; see
+\k{faq-win31}), up to and including Windows 7; and we know of no
+reason why PuTTY should not continue to work on future versions
+of Windows.
-In the development code, a partial port to the Mac OS (see
-\k{faq-mac-port}) is under way.
+The Windows executables we provide are for the 32-bit \q{\i{x86}}
+processor architecture, but they should work fine on 64-bit
+processors that are backward-compatible with that architecture.
+(We used to also provide executables for Windows for the Alpha
+processor, but stopped after 0.58 due to lack of interest.)
-Currently PuTTY does \e{not} run on Windows CE (see \k{faq-wince}),
-and it does not quite run on the Win32s environment under Windows
-3.1 (see \k{faq-win31}).
+In the development code, partial ports to the Mac OSes exist (see
+\k{faq-mac-port}).
+
+Currently PuTTY does \e{not} run on Windows CE (see \k{faq-wince}).
We do not have release-quality ports for any other systems at the
present time. If anyone told you we had an EPOC port, or an iPaq port,
or any other port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't.
There are some third-party ports to various platforms, mentioned
-on the Links page of our website.
+on the
+\W{http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/links.html}{Links page of our website}.
\S{faq-unix}{Question} \I{Unix version}Is there a port to Unix?
tools, and also one entirely new application.
If you look at the source release, you should find a \c{unix}
-subdirectory containing \c{Makefile.gtk}, which should build you Unix
+subdirectory. There are a couple of ways of building it,
+including the usual \c{configure}/\c{make}; see the file \c{README}
+in the source distribution. This should build you Unix
ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, and also
\i\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same
terminal emulation as PuTTY. We do not yet have a Unix port of
for, it might be a long time before any of us get round to learning
a new system and doing the port for that.
-However, some of the work has been done by other people, and a beta
-port of PuTTY for the Nokia 9200 Communicator series is available
-from \W{http://s2putty.sourceforge.net/}\cw{http://s2putty.sourceforge.net/}
+However, some of the work has been done by other people; see the
+\W{http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/links.html}{Links page of our website}
+for various third-party ports.
+
+\S{faq-iphone}{Question} Will there be a port to the iPhone?
+
+We have no plans to write such a port ourselves; none of us has an
+iPhone, and developing and publishing applications for it looks
+awkward and expensive. Such a port would probably depend upon the
+stalled Mac OS X port (see \k{faq-mac-port}).
+
+However, there is a third-party SSH client for the iPhone and
+iPod\_Touch called \W{http://www.instantcocoa.com/products/pTerm/}{pTerm},
+which is apparently based on PuTTY. (This is nothing to do with our
+similarly-named \c{pterm}, which is a standalone terminal emulator for
+Unix systems; see \k{faq-unix}.)
\H{faq-embedding} Embedding PuTTY in other programs
\W{http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/xp-wont-run}{\q{xp-wont-run}}
entry in PuTTY's wishlist has more details.
+\S{faq-system32}{Question} When I put PuTTY in
+\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\\i{SYSTEM32}} on my \i{64-bit Windows} system,
+\i{\q{Duplicate Session}} doesn't work.
+
+The short answer is not to put the PuTTY executables in that location.
+
+On 64-bit systems, \cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM32} is intended to contain
+only 64-bit binaries; Windows' 32-bit binaries live in
+\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSWOW64}. When a 32-bit program such as PuTTY runs
+on a 64-bit system, it cannot by default see the \q{real}
+\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM32} at all, because the
+\W{http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384187(v=vs.85).aspx}{File
+System Redirector} arranges that the running program sees the
+appropriate kind of binaries in \cw{SYSTEM32}. Thus, operations in
+the PuTTY suite that involve it accessing its own executables, such as
+\i{\q{New Session}} and \q{Duplicate Session}, will not work.
+
\H{faq-secure} Security questions
\S{faq-publicpc}{Question} Is it safe for me to download PuTTY and
PuTTY tools. Unless someone else is prepared to do the necessary work
and pay any costs, we can't provide this.
+\S{faq-vendor}{Question} As one of our existing software vendors, can
+you just fill in this questionnaire for us?
+
+We periodically receive requests like this, from organisations which
+have apparently sent out a form letter to everyone listed in their big
+spreadsheet of \q{software vendors} requiring them all to answer some
+long list of questions about supported OS versions, paid support
+arrangements, compliance with assorted local regulations we haven't
+heard of, contact phone numbers, and other such administrivia. Many of
+the questions are obviously meaningless when applied to PuTTY (we
+don't provide any paid support in the first place!), most of the rest
+could have been answered with only a very quick look at our website,
+and some we are actively unwilling to answer (we are private
+individuals, why would we want to give out our home phone numbers to
+large corporations?).
+
+We don't make a habit of responding in full to these questionnaires,
+because \e{we are not a software vendor}.
+
+A software \e{vendor} is a company to which you are paying lots of
+money in return for some software. They know who you are, and they
+know you're paying them money; so they have an incentive to fill in
+your forms and questionnaires, to research any local regulations you
+cite if they don't already know about them, and generally to provide
+every scrap of information you might possibly need in the most
+convenient manner for you, because they want to keep being paid.
+
+But we are a team of free software developers, and that means your
+relationship with us is nothing like that at all. If you once
+downloaded our software from our website, that's great and we hope you
+found it useful, but it doesn't mean we have the least idea who you
+are, or any incentive to do lots of unpaid work to support our
+\q{relationship} with you.
+
+It's not that we are unwilling to \e{provide information}. We put as
+much of it as we can on our website for your convenience, and if you
+actually need to know some fact about PuTTY which you haven't been
+able to find on the website (and which is not obviously inapplicable
+to free software in the first place) then please do ask us, and we'll
+try to answer as best we can. But we put up the website and this FAQ
+precisely so that we \e{don't} have to keep answering the same
+questions over and over again, so we aren't prepared to fill in
+completely generic form-letter questionnaires for people who haven't
+done their best to find the answers here first.
+
+If you work for an organisation which you think might be at risk of
+making this mistake, we urge you to reorganise your list of software
+suppliers so that it clearly distinguishes paid vendors who know about
+you from free software developers who don't have any idea who you are.
+Then, only send out these mass mailings to the former.
+
\H{faq-misc} Miscellaneous questions
\S{faq-openssh}{Question} Is PuTTY a port of \i{OpenSSH}, or based on
projects / PuTTY.git / blobdiff