38 ms·

It's even better: 64-bit Windows doesn't support 16-bit Win 3.1 apps anymore, but you can still run them via Wine on the Linux subsystem.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
It should be noted that WineVDM[0] will allow you to run 16-bit Windows applications on Windows without the Linux subsystem. [0] https://github.com/otya128/winevdm https://github.com/otya128/winevdm It would have been relatively straightforward for Microsoft to support 16-bit on 64-bit, but they decided not to. I can't help but feel that that is just more evidence that whoever is running Windows development these days hates everything that used to make it a good desktop.
- muststopmyths 7y ago
  64-bit Windows has never supported 16-bit. This has nothing to do with "whoever is running Windows development these days" Back when 64-bit Windows came out (with XP and Server 20003), the adoption was pretty small since most applications were not 64-bit and did not need 64-bit address spaces. Microsoft saw the opportunity to kill at least one backward compatibility burden by not even trying to support 16-bit for x64. They figured, rightly, that by the time x64 became widespread, 16-bit would be obsolete.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > 64-bit Windows has never supported 16-bit. Don't believe I said otherwise. > This has nothing to do with "whoever is running Windows development these days" > Microsoft saw the opportunity to kill at least one backward compatibility burden by not even trying to support 16-bit for x64. These two statements are at odds. Microsoft used to take compatibility extremely seriously. It would have been relatively trivial to allow 16-bit applications to run, and obviously there is desire to do so since WineVDM exists, they just arbitrarily decided not to. I suspect this is because they've become infected with developers who use Linux a lot and think nothing of breaking compatibility every release, let alone in cases like this.
  - efreak 7y ago
    Wasn't 64-bit windows 2k/64 itanium-based, not x86-based? If so it would have required supporting existing binaries compiled for a different architecture. My understanding is that the only 16-bit support in 64-bit windows is a few specific loaders for things like 16-bit installers (please correct me if I'm wrong)
    - muststopmyths 7y ago
      Yes, the initial 64-bit OS was IA64 and that was the perfect excuse to dump NTVDM, instead of trying to do a W16OW64 or something of that sort. x64 XP and 2003 further solidified that decision because they were "professional" SKUs and Microsoft could dictate that they didn't care about DOS/Win16 for the "new" platform. It didn't exactly run 16-bit installers. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20131031-00/?p=2783 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20131031-00/?p=27...
  - jdsully 7y ago
    Virtual 8086 mode was gone, but they could have just emulated it. The real reason 16-bit apps don't run is Microsoft didn't think it was worth the effort.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

It should be noted that WineVDM[0] will allow you to run 16-bit Windows applications on Windows without the Linux subsystem. [0] https://github.com/otya128/winevdm https://github.com/otya128/winevdm It would have been relatively straightforward for Microsoft to support 16-bit on 64-bit, but they decided not to. I can't help but feel that that is just more evidence that whoever is running Windows development these days hates everything that used to make it a good desktop.

muststopmyths 7y ago
64-bit Windows has never supported 16-bit. This has nothing to do with "whoever is running Windows development these days" Back when 64-bit Windows came out (with XP and Server 20003), the adoption was pretty small since most applications were not 64-bit and did not need 64-bit address spaces. Microsoft saw the opportunity to kill at least one backward compatibility burden by not even trying to support 16-bit for x64. They figured, rightly, that by the time x64 became widespread, 16-bit would be obsolete.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > 64-bit Windows has never supported 16-bit. Don't believe I said otherwise. > This has nothing to do with "whoever is running Windows development these days" > Microsoft saw the opportunity to kill at least one backward compatibility burden by not even trying to support 16-bit for x64. These two statements are at odds. Microsoft used to take compatibility extremely seriously. It would have been relatively trivial to allow 16-bit applications to run, and obviously there is desire to do so since WineVDM exists, they just arbitrarily decided not to. I suspect this is because they've become infected with developers who use Linux a lot and think nothing of breaking compatibility every release, let alone in cases like this.
- efreak 7y ago
  Wasn't 64-bit windows 2k/64 itanium-based, not x86-based? If so it would have required supporting existing binaries compiled for a different architecture. My understanding is that the only 16-bit support in 64-bit windows is a few specific loaders for things like 16-bit installers (please correct me if I'm wrong)
  - muststopmyths 7y ago
    Yes, the initial 64-bit OS was IA64 and that was the perfect excuse to dump NTVDM, instead of trying to do a W16OW64 or something of that sort. x64 XP and 2003 further solidified that decision because they were "professional" SKUs and Microsoft could dictate that they didn't care about DOS/Win16 for the "new" platform. It didn't exactly run 16-bit installers. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20131031-00/?p=2783 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20131031-00/?p=27...
- jdsully 7y ago
  Virtual 8086 mode was gone, but they could have just emulated it. The real reason 16-bit apps don't run is Microsoft didn't think it was worth the effort.