4 ms·

Note that they don't: https://blog.stuffedcow.net/2015/08/win9x-tlb-invalidation-bug/ https://blog.stuffedcow.net/2015/08/win9x-tlb-invalidation-b...

hu3 2y ago
> There is code in Windows 95 through Me that performs the incorrect sequence of operations mentioned in the AMD manual. That's a small depreciation. Not to mention you'd have a much easier time running Windows 95 in VirtualBox or QEMU you really needed it (good luck). That's completely different than going from i386 to arm architecture.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  Actually no, since running under VirtualBox is effectively still running the same code in the same processor, it will also crash and burn under VirtualBox. Just pointing they don't care about "50 year program compatibility", never have. At best they care of last 10 years.
  - hu3 2y ago
    Funny, I'm running Windows ME in VirtualBox on my new AMD processor right now. And so are others with WinME/Win95 if you bother to search. And phasing out 0.0001% of the spec is still caring a lot more than replacing 100% of the architecture.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      You are running a _patched_ version of Windows ME. The original Windows ME will just crash on first boot if you try to use it. The fact that _you have to search_ to find the fix to use it proves my point... Why does it matter if it's "0.0000001%" of the spec they broke, if it's exactly the .% a major operating system needs to run? Does it matter if they break "0.1%" or "50%" of the spec if as a consequence your 50 year old software doesn't run any more?
      - hu3 2y ago
        It matters because running old software is still trivial.
        AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        Sorry, but once you have to resort to emulation or patching binaries, I can hardly think it anymore as trivial. Or that they care about backwards compatibility. You are lucky someone has figured out whatever needs to be patched here. You won't be next time.

hu3 2y ago

> There is code in Windows 95 through Me that performs the incorrect sequence of operations mentioned in the AMD manual. That's a small depreciation. Not to mention you'd have a much easier time running Windows 95 in VirtualBox or QEMU you really needed it (good luck). That's completely different than going from i386 to arm architecture.

AshamedCaptain 2y ago
Actually no, since running under VirtualBox is effectively still running the same code in the same processor, it will also crash and burn under VirtualBox. Just pointing they don't care about "50 year program compatibility", never have. At best they care of last 10 years.
- hu3 2y ago
  Funny, I'm running Windows ME in VirtualBox on my new AMD processor right now. And so are others with WinME/Win95 if you bother to search. And phasing out 0.0001% of the spec is still caring a lot more than replacing 100% of the architecture.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    You are running a _patched_ version of Windows ME. The original Windows ME will just crash on first boot if you try to use it. The fact that _you have to search_ to find the fix to use it proves my point... Why does it matter if it's "0.0000001%" of the spec they broke, if it's exactly the .% a major operating system needs to run? Does it matter if they break "0.1%" or "50%" of the spec if as a consequence your 50 year old software doesn't run any more?
    - hu3 2y ago
      It matters because running old software is still trivial.
      - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        Sorry, but once you have to resort to emulation or patching binaries, I can hardly think it anymore as trivial. Or that they care about backwards compatibility. You are lucky someone has figured out whatever needs to be patched here. You won't be next time.