4 ms·
There is a huge amount of Windows software that's still 32-bit (or at least, installs into `Program Files (x86)`), so unless Microsoft is going to start handlin
by danudey 3y ago
There is a huge amount of Windows software that's still 32-bit (or at least, installs into `Program Files (x86)`), so unless Microsoft is going to start handling that kind of emulation natively in their OS (which they may decide to do), it's going to break a huge amount of stuff.
Removing 16-bit and 32-bit OS support, on the other hand, makes perfect sense.
- arcticbull 3y agoYes, it would have to be done at the OS level. I don't see that as a blocker.
- microtonal 3y agoIt works both ways. Axing 32-bit support is going to make it impossible to use a large collection of software. On the other hand, supporting legacy architectures, legacy APIs, etc. for decades also makes developers and users lazy. There needs to be some balance.
- rstat1 3y ago>>so unless Microsoft is going to start handling that kind of emulation natively They already do, and have since the x64 version of XP. Its called WoW64.
- profile53 3y agoWoW64 just handles DLL loading/memory mapping/kernel interfaces. It doesn’t do binary translation of the user code at all. Windows x86 on Windows ARM does binary translation.
- rstat1 3y agofrom MSDN or Microsoft Learn (w/e): "WOW64 is the x86 emulator that allows 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows" Sounds like emulation to me.
- lproven 3y agoThunking is not emulation. Thunking has been widespread since OS/2 1 in the mid-1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s The original wikipedia article on Thunks has been generalized into uselessness. :-(
- lamp987 3y agowow64 is just windows equivalent of linux /lib32/*