3 ms·

OS/2 2.1 had included a copy of Windows 3.x for users to run 16-bit Windows programs at the cost of IBM paying Microsoft for a Windows license. Later versions o

by canucker2016 2y ago

OS/2 2.1 had included a copy of Windows 3.x for users to run 16-bit Windows programs at the cost of IBM paying Microsoft for a Windows license. Later versions of OS/2 could use user-installed versions of Windows, which helped IBM avoid paying for a Windows license. Since Win95 used Win32 APIs, unavailable to Windows 3.1, 32-bit Win95-apps couldn't run on OS/2 at all. So that spanking new version of Office 95? Not on OS/2.

lproven 2y ago
> Win32 APIs, unavailable to Windows 3.1 "I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that." Windows 3 could run Win32 code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s It's still out there: https://winworldpc.com/product/win32s/130 https://winworldpc.com/product/win32s/130 It's a good way to get the old tiny fast Freecell on Windows 11. The FREECELL.EXE binary in Win32s runs fine on Windows 11 x86-64. (And on Arm64 come to that.) And OS/2 could run Win32s: https://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Win32s https://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Win32s ... At least until the final version, 1.30c (IIRC) when MS found a way to nobble it so OS/2 couldn't run it any more.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  Nitpick: Win32s was limited, and missed a lot of functionality. From the linked Wikipedia article: The "s" in Win32s signifies subset, as Win32s lacked a number of Windows NT functions, including multi-threading, asynchronous I/O, newer serial port functions and many GDI extensions. This generally limited it to "Win32s applications" which were specifically designed for the Win32s platform." There was a MS knowledge base article with the long list of limitations, archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110524062145/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q131896/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110524062145/http://support.mi...
  - lproven 2y ago
    Oh, yes, totally true. It wasn't a lot of actual use, but a few non-trivial apps ran. (Briefly, this being Win3.) But it falsifies the statement that 32-bit code didn't run on Win3. Even late-era DOS has 32-bit apps.
- canucker2016 2y ago
  Not a commercially viable target for most companies. Win32s was a stopgap for Win32 support for lower end machines when only WinNT was around. Once Win95 arrived, Win32s's days were numbered (along with 16-bit Win 3.x). If you're designing a Win32 app for Windows 95, are you going to stick with the Win3.1 look and feel? No. You're redesigning your UI to look like a native Win95 app. Where are your testing resources targeted? Win32s? Nope. Win95 only. Well maybe if Win95 sales are slow, you'll do more testing on Win32s... Then you read https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsofts-windows-95-software-turned-192528654.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsofts-windows-95-softwar... People lined up to buy Win95 at midnight on release day? [Before Harry Potter book and iPhone releases] Commercial consumer Win32s support died that day. So running Win95 apps on OS/2 2.1 running Win3.1 running Win32s DLLs wasn't going to be a supported platform for software companies. IBM didn't want Win32 apps. They wanted OS/2 PM apps.
  - lproven 2y ago
    Oh, for any companies, I'd think.
- _0xdd 2y ago
  I recall Westwood Monopoly (great game, btw) requiring Win32s to be installed to run the game on Windows 3.x. It also required WinG (which eventually got deprecated for DirectX). I have fond memories of playing around with Freecell and Microsoft Doggie (test app for WinG).

lproven 2y ago

> Win32 APIs, unavailable to Windows 3.1 "I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that." Windows 3 could run Win32 code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s It's still out there: https://winworldpc.com/product/win32s/130 https://winworldpc.com/product/win32s/130 It's a good way to get the old tiny fast Freecell on Windows 11. The FREECELL.EXE binary in Win32s runs fine on Windows 11 x86-64. (And on Arm64 come to that.) And OS/2 could run Win32s: https://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Win32s https://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Win32s ... At least until the final version, 1.30c (IIRC) when MS found a way to nobble it so OS/2 couldn't run it any more.

sillywalk 2y ago
Nitpick: Win32s was limited, and missed a lot of functionality. From the linked Wikipedia article: The "s" in Win32s signifies subset, as Win32s lacked a number of Windows NT functions, including multi-threading, asynchronous I/O, newer serial port functions and many GDI extensions. This generally limited it to "Win32s applications" which were specifically designed for the Win32s platform." There was a MS knowledge base article with the long list of limitations, archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110524062145/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q131896/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110524062145/http://support.mi...
- lproven 2y ago
  Oh, yes, totally true. It wasn't a lot of actual use, but a few non-trivial apps ran. (Briefly, this being Win3.) But it falsifies the statement that 32-bit code didn't run on Win3. Even late-era DOS has 32-bit apps.
canucker2016 2y ago
Not a commercially viable target for most companies. Win32s was a stopgap for Win32 support for lower end machines when only WinNT was around. Once Win95 arrived, Win32s's days were numbered (along with 16-bit Win 3.x). If you're designing a Win32 app for Windows 95, are you going to stick with the Win3.1 look and feel? No. You're redesigning your UI to look like a native Win95 app. Where are your testing resources targeted? Win32s? Nope. Win95 only. Well maybe if Win95 sales are slow, you'll do more testing on Win32s... Then you read https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsofts-windows-95-software-turned-192528654.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsofts-windows-95-softwar... People lined up to buy Win95 at midnight on release day? [Before Harry Potter book and iPhone releases] Commercial consumer Win32s support died that day. So running Win95 apps on OS/2 2.1 running Win3.1 running Win32s DLLs wasn't going to be a supported platform for software companies. IBM didn't want Win32 apps. They wanted OS/2 PM apps.
- lproven 2y ago
  Oh, for any companies, I'd think.
_0xdd 2y ago
I recall Westwood Monopoly (great game, btw) requiring Win32s to be installed to run the game on Windows 3.x. It also required WinG (which eventually got deprecated for DirectX). I have fond memories of playing around with Freecell and Microsoft Doggie (test app for WinG).