4 ms·

This is solved by making Windows a subsystem of a Linux-based operating system. Much like Wine, but actually maintained by Microsoft, providing a completely iso

This is solved by making Windows a subsystem of a Linux-based operating system. Much like Wine, but actually maintained by Microsoft, providing a completely isolated and bug-compatible environment for legacy apps, and a leaner implementation for future win32 APIs that map more closely to Linux primitives.

Eric_WVGG 5y ago
Pretty much the same way that early versions of Mac OS X could run “Classic” apps. (It’s kind of remarkable how Apple was able to push their entire user base into a transition, and backward compatibility with that era is neither practical nor really desired. Not the case with Windows!) Anyway, yeah, there are really no technical reasons why this couldn’t be done or even difficult, the reasons why this would never happen are all strategic and enterprisey.
TheRealDunkirk 5y ago
Hilarious. Then they'd have to deal with the fact that they deliberately made their API calls to screw with Wine, and things like Crossover, during the late 90's and early 2000's.
- giomasce 5y ago
  Reference for this?
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Not really. They had a ton of programs that needed bug-for-bug compatibility. Caring about getting SimCity2000 to run is a much more reasonable explanation than trying to protect themselves from Wine, which in the early 2000s was barely on anyone's radar.
loeg 5y ago
Yes. But the idea that creating this from the ground up is easier than maintaining Windows is baffling.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Wine is almost bug-compatible with existing Windows code, and certainly much cleaner than whatever code DLLs written in the Windows ME era contain.
  - loeg 5y ago
    > Wine is almost bug-compatible with existing Windows code The really important emphasis here is on "almost." The value is in "100%." > and certainly much cleaner than whatever code DLLs written in the Windows ME era contain "Cleaner" is not a benefit.

Eric_WVGG 5y ago

Pretty much the same way that early versions of Mac OS X could run “Classic” apps. (It’s kind of remarkable how Apple was able to push their entire user base into a transition, and backward compatibility with that era is neither practical nor really desired. Not the case with Windows!) Anyway, yeah, there are really no technical reasons why this couldn’t be done or even difficult, the reasons why this would never happen are all strategic and enterprisey.

TheRealDunkirk 5y ago

Hilarious. Then they'd have to deal with the fact that they deliberately made their API calls to screw with Wine, and things like Crossover, during the late 90's and early 2000's.

giomasce 5y ago
Reference for this?
Daishiman 5y ago
Not really. They had a ton of programs that needed bug-for-bug compatibility. Caring about getting SimCity2000 to run is a much more reasonable explanation than trying to protect themselves from Wine, which in the early 2000s was barely on anyone's radar.

loeg 5y ago

Yes. But the idea that creating this from the ground up is easier than maintaining Windows is baffling.

Daishiman 5y ago
Wine is almost bug-compatible with existing Windows code, and certainly much cleaner than whatever code DLLs written in the Windows ME era contain.
- loeg 5y ago
  > Wine is almost bug-compatible with existing Windows code The really important emphasis here is on "almost." The value is in "100%." > and certainly much cleaner than whatever code DLLs written in the Windows ME era contain "Cleaner" is not a benefit.