However, the SSH-1 protocol has many weaknesses and is no longer
considered secure; you should use SSH-2 instead if at all possible.
- \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE:
As of 0.68, PuTTY will no longer fall back to SSH-1 if the server
- doesn't appear to support SSH-2; you must explicitly ask for SSH-1. }
+ doesn't appear to support SSH-2; you must explicitly ask for SSH-1.
\S{faq-localecho}{Question} Does PuTTY support \i{local echo}?
Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on Windows
systems and Unix.
- \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE: replace following two lines with:
--As of 0.68, the supplied PuTTY executables run on versions of
- Windows from XP onwards,}
- PuTTY runs on versions of Windows from Windows 95 onwards (but not
- the 16-bit Windows 3.1; see \k{faq-win31}),
- up to and including Windows 10; and we know of no reason why PuTTY
- should not continue to work on future versions of Windows.
- \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE: We provide 32-bit and 64-bit Windows
- executables; see \k{faq-32bit-64bit} for discussion of the
- compatibility issues around that.}
-Windows from XP onwards, up to and including Windows 10; and we
-know of no reason why PuTTY should not continue to work on
-future versions of Windows.
-
-The 32-bit Windows executables we provide for the \q{\i{x86}}
-processor architecture should also work fine on 64-bit processors
-that are backward-compatible with that architecture. The 64-bit
-executables will only work on 64-bit versions of Windows. They
-will run somewhat faster than 32-bit executables would on the
-same processor, but will consume slightly more memory.
++As of 0.68, the supplied PuTTY executables run on versions of Windows
++from XP onwards, up to and including Windows 10; and we know of no
++reason why PuTTY should not continue to work on future versions of
++Windows. We provide 32-bit and 64-bit Windows executables; see
++\k{faq-32bit-64bit} for discussion of the compatibility issues around
++that.
(We used to also provide executables for Windows for the Alpha
processor, but stopped after 0.58 due to lack of interest.)
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
+ ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, Pageant, and also
\i\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same
- terminal emulation as PuTTY. \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE:}
- We do not yet have a Unix port of Pageant.
+ terminal emulation as PuTTY.
If you don't have \i{Gtk}, you should still be able to build the
command-line tools.
\S{faq-wince}{Question} Will there be a port to Windows CE or PocketPC?
-We have done some work on such a port, but it only reached an early
+We once did some work on such a port, but it only reached an early
stage, and certainly not a useful one. It's no longer being actively
worked on.
-However, there's a third-party port at
-\W{http://www.pocketputty.net/}\c{http://www.pocketputty.net/}.
-
\S{faq-win31}{Question} Is there a port to \i{Windows 3.1}?
PuTTY is a 32-bit application from the ground up, so it won't run on
You can ask PuTTY to delete all this data; see \k{faq-cleanup}.
-On Unix, PuTTY stores all of this data in a directory \cw{~/.putty}.
+On Unix, PuTTY stores all of this data in a directory \cw{~/.putty}
+by default.
\H{faq-howto} HOWTO questions
\c pscp "local file" user@host:
\c pscp user@host:"remote file" .
- The 64-bit version
- \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE (first released in 0.XX)}
- will only run if you have a 64-bit processor \e{and} a \I{64-bit
- Windows}64-bit edition of Windows (both of these things are likely to
- be true of any recent Windows PC). It will run somewhat faster (in
- particular, the cryptography will be faster, especially during link
- setup), but it will consume slightly more memory.
+\S{faq-32bit-64bit}{Question} Should I run the 32-bit or the
+64-bit version?
+
+If you're not sure, the \I{32-bit Windows}32-bit version is generally
+the safe option. It will run perfectly well on all processors and on
+all versions of Windows that PuTTY supports. PuTTY doesn't require to
+run as a 64-bit application to work well, and having a 32-bit PuTTY on
+a 64-bit system isn't likely to cause you any trouble.
+
++The 64-bit version (first released in 0.68) will only run if you have
++a 64-bit processor \e{and} a \I{64-bit Windows}64-bit edition of
++Windows (both of these things are likely to be true of any recent
++Windows PC). It will run somewhat faster (in particular, the
++cryptography will be faster, especially during link setup), but it
++will consume slightly more memory.
+
+If you need to use an external \i{DLL} for GSSAPI authentication, that
+DLL may only be available in a 32-bit or 64-bit form, and that will
+dictate the version of PuTTY you need to use. (You will probably know
+if you're doing this; see \k{config-ssh-auth-gssapi-libraries} in the
+documentation.)
+
\H{faq-trouble} Troubleshooting
\S{faq-incorrect-mac}{Question} Why do I see \q{Incorrect MAC
\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
- \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE 32-bit} PuTTY in
+ \S{faq-system32}{Question} When I put 32-bit PuTTY in
\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\\i{SYSTEM32}} on my \i{64-bit Windows} system,
\i{\q{Duplicate Session}} doesn't work.
projects / PuTTY.git / commitdiff