4 ms·
Some, not all. And Wine/Proton is (i would say) more compatible with old Windows-Apps then Windows itself, not even talking about dosbox/dosbox-x.
by nix23 5y ago
Some, not all.
And Wine/Proton is (i would say) more compatible with old Windows-Apps then Windows itself, not even talking about dosbox/dosbox-x.
- pjmlp 5y agoSo what is the value of Linux when it needs to play OS/2 Windows compatibility flag? It did plenty of good to OS/2 native applications. And some is still more than I could say for something compiled in Red Hat Linux (!Enterprise) or Mandrake, to put it in perspective regarding 2000.
- nix23 5y ago> So what is the value of Linux when it needs to play OS/2 Windows compatibility flag? What's the value of Windows if it has worse compatibility to is former incarnations? >And some is still more than I could say for something compiled in Red Hat Linux (!Enterprise) or Mandrake, to put it in perspective regarding 2000 It could be always worse and better, let's talk about z/OS
- pjmlp 5y agoExcept it doesn't, not to the extent of how bad Linux does it. I really would like to see IBM marketing materials about the Year of z/OS Desktop.
- nix23 5y agoYou twist thing as you go, for backward compatibility no one can match z/OS. As for the desktop...let's wait for linux or bsd to do that (or not)....or iOS/Android (worst outcome of them all).
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoIronically what this means is that Linux Desktop has better compatibility with Windows binaries than it does with its own binaries from the near past. The Windows APIs are stable enough to make that possible.