In article <>,
says...
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:58:56 -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox
> <> wrote:
>
> >In article <>,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:39:15 -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <$>,
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> In message <>, TheGunslinger
> >> >> <> writes:
> >> >> >On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:10:02 +0200, Maurizio <>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> []
> >> >> >>it makes no sense to destroy backward compatibility, is this true?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>thank you
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There are three major versions of Windows 7: 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit
> >> >> >(x64) and IA64.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is the third one - I mean, how does it differ from the other two?
> >> >> []
> >> >> >A lot of legacy software contains or is 16-bit based. Windows 7 64-bit
> >> >> >only supports 32-bit and 64-bit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? I don't mean technically why - I'm sure you can tell me that
> >> >> (incompatible file versions and so on), I just mean why was that
> >> >> decision made? Like Maurizio, I am puzzled by it.
> >> >
> >> >Likely, it was because the additional layer of code required to support
> >> >it was too much bloat (heh - now there's a thought, MS thinking a
> >> >feature might add too much bloat!), especially for the relatively few
> >> >users who actually need it.
> >> >
> >> >That, or just wanting to make a cleaner break - legacy support is a
> >> >major impediment to future growth.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As a result, Windows 7 64-bit ONLY uses the latest version of
> >> >> >Microsoft Virtual PC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >HOWEVER, if you install Windows 7 32-bit, you can install Microsoft
> >> >> >Virtual PC 2007 for legacy OS's, you can install XP, Windows Millenium
> >> >> >and 98, AND MS-DOS 6.22.
> >> >>
> >> >> In particular, that puzzles me. Even if there is some reason not to
> >> >> support legacy software in the underlying OS, not supporting it via an
> >> >> emulator seems a`_very_ odd decision, bordering on the vindictive!
> >> >
> >> >I think either MJR mis-spoke or you misunderstood.
> >> >
> >> >Windows 7 64-bit Pro / Enterprise (and Ultimate, I think I forgot that
> >> >in earlier posts) all support XP mode, which runs a 32-bit version of
> >> >XP, which will run 16-bit and balky 32-bit software just fine. Also,
> >> >the latest version of MS Virtual PC can run XP 32-bit, with the same
> >> >capabilities.
> >> >
> >> >Finally, if you are running a 32-bit version of Windows 7, you don't
> >> >need the emulator / virtual machine at all, it will run most XP-
> >> >compatible 32-bit and most 16-bit software just fine without an
> >> >emulator / virtual machine.
> >>
> >>
> >> Zaphod, Sorry, I didn't misspeak.
> >>
> >> I have 5-PC's set-up my house. I am such a geek. /sigh
> >
> >
> >Only 5? You have much to learn, grasshopper.
>
> Not too much really to learn considering I have had a PC of one sort
> or another since 1985. These are just the systems I consider worth the
> effort to keep running.
>
> I have a couple more out in the Garage though. 2-Commodore VIC-20's
> and a 64. I have game cartridges and expansion cards and an old color
> TV that was used for a monitor. LOL.
>
> I used to set the VIC-20 up for the kids when they were toddlers.
>
>
Intended more as a bit of tongue in cheek humor - apparently, that
didn't translate well into the text medium we are using. Must remember
to use emoticons...
> >
> >>
> >> My 64-bit Win 7 Pro laptop is set-up with XP-Mode, and will only run
> >> pure 32-bit software.
> >
> >
> >Then you are doing it wrong. Windows 7 Pro with XP Mode is quite happy
> >running 16-bit software since XP mode is a 32-bit version of XP. I
> >know, I'm doing it now.
>
> Interesting, I didn't have any luck getting a lot of my older legacy
> stuff to run. Could be that some of my really old programs are a combo
> of 8/16 bit or 16/32 bit programming, and XP-Mode arbitrarily decides
> they won't run? I get messages indicating 'wrong version' of operating
> system when it checks for requirements in its compatible software
> database?
> >>
Hard to say, again, I've not run into any software that ran under 32-
bit XP that won't run under XP Mode. YMMV (and apparently does).
> >> My 32-bit Win Pro desktop won't run XP-Mode.
> >
> >
> >Windows 7 Pro? XP Mode should work just fine, we use it all the time.
> >Of curse, it is a rare program that requires it since you can run 16-
> >bit programs in Windows 7 32-bit without it. Again, we do it all the
> >time. The only ones that don't work right are those that use DOS
> >graphics modes or which require DOS full-screen mode which Vista and
> >Windows 7 don't support but which work fine in XP Mode.
> XP-Mode is designed for Win 7 Pro+ x-64 or IA64, 64-bit versions.
No, XP Mode is designed to allow software to work that isn't compatible
with the new security model used in Windows 7. It is available in both
32 and 64-bit versions of Windows 7. Again, I know, because we use it.
>
> For the 32-bit version, you have to use Virtual PC 2004 or 2007, and
> install the OS you want to use.
You certainly can do this, but you don't have to use Virtual PC 2004 or
2007, XP Mode is available and handles the licensing issue that most
non packrat^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software historians would encounter.
> Since I have legacy OS's all the way
> back to MS-DOS 5.0, I can pretty much install w/e I want.
>
>
Agreed, that is a benefit of the full Virtual PC, for those who have
the OS licenses available.
> >
> >
> >> However, by installing MS
> >> Virtual PC 2007, I have virtual OS's of: MS DOS 6.22/Windows for
> >> Workgroups 3.1; Windows 98; Windows Millenium; and Windows XP.
> >
> >
> >That *is* a benefit of the full Virtual PC, assuming you have licenses
> >of course.
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, Windows Millenium Edition was the first true 32-bit OS release.
> >> If you are careful, you can sometimes see the onscreen flash stating
> >> that "NT Kernel" loaded.
> >
> >
> >You are seeing things. Windows ME was most certainly *NOT* based on
> >the NT kernel. It did run in 32-bit Protected Mode as soon as the boot
> >loader was finished and the DOS Real Mode stuff was no longer needed
> >though (not "on top of DOS" like many claim).
>
> Yeah, Win 98/98SE was the last version that the gui ran on top of DOS.
>
> As I said, if you catch the screen just right, it displays...'NT
> kernel' loaded... Too bad I've never been able to get a screen shot
> since it during the boot.
I'll need proof for that claim, since as I understand the architecture
it cannot be the case.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows..._Windows_relea
ses, where it says:
"Windows Me is in fact derived from the older, monolithic MS-DOS
codebase (Windows 4.x) while Windows 2000 is the first of the NT 5.0
family"
and
"Windows Me was the last operating system to be based on the Windows 9x
(monolithic) kernel and MS-DOS."
While Windows ME lacked Real Mode support and was fully 32-bit, it was
not based on the NT kernel.
--
Zaphod
"The best Bang since the Big One" - Eccentrica Gallumbits
Similar Threads
