Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > x64 - ready for prime time?

Reply
Thread Tools

x64 - ready for prime time?

 
 
Lynn McGuire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2006
>> Nope. Backwards compatibility is not there for Win16 and Dos16 apps.
>>
>> NTVDM needs to be ported to Windows X64 by MS.
>>
>> And yes, I know about DosBox. It is not acceptible.


> You know I understand the why, but I have to tell you - there is zero chance that NTVDM will ever be ported to 64bit by MS. I'd
> suggest that the virtual machine route is pretty much your only option to have x64 Windows and still be able to use DOS
> applications.


Then Windows x64 will not be accepted on the desktop. Microsoft
will start losing the battle to Linux / MaxOS / FreeBSD because they
do support Dos16 and Win16 apps out of the box (via Wine). The
number of mission critical Dos16 and Win16 apps is just totally
amazing.

I now that I keep harping on this but the firestorm is coming. MS is
just being stupid here.

Lynn



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter Lawton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
I've just converted all our terminal servers sucessfully to x64 and none of
the 50 odd apps our users need wouldn't run under x64 (two apps needed an
update to the latest version)

Personally I can't help feeling that if anyone's still relying on Win16 and
Dos16 apps it's probably well past time that they upgraded their apps in any
case.

I expect it's going to be quite a few more years yet before MS stop
supporting 32bit OS completely anyway, so why would anyone be so keen to
upgrade to the latest and greatest x64 OS and still be happy to rely on
16bit and DOS apps?

Peter Lawton

"Lynn McGuire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Nope. Backwards compatibility is not there for Win16 and Dos16 apps.
>>>
>>> NTVDM needs to be ported to Windows X64 by MS.
>>>
>>> And yes, I know about DosBox. It is not acceptible.

>
>> You know I understand the why, but I have to tell you - there is zero
>> chance that NTVDM will ever be ported to 64bit by MS. I'd suggest that
>> the virtual machine route is pretty much your only option to have x64
>> Windows and still be able to use DOS applications.

>
> Then Windows x64 will not be accepted on the desktop. Microsoft
> will start losing the battle to Linux / MaxOS / FreeBSD because they
> do support Dos16 and Win16 apps out of the box (via Wine). The
> number of mission critical Dos16 and Win16 apps is just totally
> amazing.
>
> I now that I keep harping on this but the firestorm is coming. MS is
> just being stupid here.
>
> Lynn
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
Nope, I absolutely do NOT agree. It is time and more to let go of 16 bit
applications. And the tradeoffs are far better behaviour moving forward by
not having to provide support for 16 bit apps.

I repeat - run the 16 bit application in a (free) virtual environment.
Either VMWare or Virtual Server, I don't care. The app will run just fine.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Nope. Backwards compatibility is not there for Win16 and Dos16 apps.
>>>
>>> NTVDM needs to be ported to Windows X64 by MS.
>>>
>>> And yes, I know about DosBox. It is not acceptible.

>
>> You know I understand the why, but I have to tell you - there is zero
>> chance that NTVDM will ever be ported to 64bit by MS. I'd suggest that
>> the virtual machine route is pretty much your only option to have x64
>> Windows and still be able to use DOS applications.

>
> Then Windows x64 will not be accepted on the desktop. Microsoft
> will start losing the battle to Linux / MaxOS / FreeBSD because they
> do support Dos16 and Win16 apps out of the box (via Wine). The
> number of mission critical Dos16 and Win16 apps is just totally
> amazing.
>
> I now that I keep harping on this but the firestorm is coming. MS is
> just being stupid here.
>
> Lynn



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
Lynn's favourite app is a great little DOS application that will never get
ported - LIST. I run my copy of LIST in a Win95 VM that I have here. Works
fine for my needs.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


Peter Lawton wrote:
> I've just converted all our terminal servers sucessfully to x64 and none
> of the 50 odd apps our users need wouldn't run under x64 (two apps needed
> an update to the latest version)
>
> Personally I can't help feeling that if anyone's still relying on Win16
> and Dos16 apps it's probably well past time that they upgraded their apps
> in any case.
>
> I expect it's going to be quite a few more years yet before MS stop
> supporting 32bit OS completely anyway, so why would anyone be so keen to
> upgrade to the latest and greatest x64 OS and still be happy to rely on
> 16bit and DOS apps?
>
> Peter Lawton
>
> "Lynn McGuire" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Nope. Backwards compatibility is not there for Win16 and Dos16 apps.
>>>>
>>>> NTVDM needs to be ported to Windows X64 by MS.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, I know about DosBox. It is not acceptible.

>>
>>> You know I understand the why, but I have to tell you - there is zero
>>> chance that NTVDM will ever be ported to 64bit by MS. I'd suggest that
>>> the virtual machine route is pretty much your only option to have x64
>>> Windows and still be able to use DOS applications.

>>
>> Then Windows x64 will not be accepted on the desktop. Microsoft
>> will start losing the battle to Linux / MaxOS / FreeBSD because they
>> do support Dos16 and Win16 apps out of the box (via Wine). The
>> number of mission critical Dos16 and Win16 apps is just totally
>> amazing.
>>
>> I now that I keep harping on this but the firestorm is coming. MS is
>> just being stupid here.
>>
>> Lynn



 
Reply With Quote
 
roman modic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
Hello!

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Lynn's favourite app is a great little DOS application that will never get ported - LIST. I run my copy of LIST in a Win95 VM that
> I have here. Works fine for my needs.
>


Is there no 32-bit alternative to LIST? For example
I use 32-bit "FAR Manager" instead of 16-bit
"Norton Commander":
http://farmanager.com/index.php?l=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander

Roman


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
no. There is not, I'm afraid. And Vern Buerg, the author, is not likely to
ever port it to Windows. It's written almost entirely in assembly, and
making that a 32-bit app is just not going to happen. Too bad, really, but I
understand.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


roman modic wrote:
> Hello!
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Lynn's favourite app is a great little DOS application that will never
>> get ported - LIST. I run my copy of LIST in a Win95 VM that I have here.
>> Works fine for my needs.

>
> Is there no 32-bit alternative to LIST? For example
> I use 32-bit "FAR Manager" instead of 16-bit
> "Norton Commander":
> http://farmanager.com/index.php?l=en
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander
>
> Roman



 
Reply With Quote
 
DP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006


Let me take a guess at what I think Lynn is referring to. If I'm wrong, I
apologize.
I'd be willing to bet that if you went across America and looked into the
factories, distribution plants, printing plants, dairies, meat packers, etc,
you'll find a lot of them with computers that are using old DOS programs to
monitor and control activities. This could be running manufacturing
machinery and printing presses, controlling inventory, even doing payroll
and accounts payable/receivable.
It could be that the original creator of this program went out of business a
long time ago in one of the many shakeouts in the industry. Or it could be
the creator of the program never had the programming moxie to bring it up to
date in a reliable fashion so that it could work on later editions of
Windows.
Meanwhile, the end users possibly didn't have the bucks to upgrade. Or maybe
they were using an old computer system and the DOS program worked for them.
Anyway, I'm speculating here, but suffice it to say that in the real world
where profit and loss matter, you might find that the end users are not as
techonologically cutting edge as we x64 users might be. There's all sorts of
reasons that businesses have had to stick with mission-critical DOS
programs. Eventually, they'll have to upgrade computers as old ones die off.
But when they go looking for new computers and OS's, they're probably going
to look for ones that can still run their old DOS programs.
Lynn, was I close?




"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Og7i%(E-Mail Removed)...
> no. There is not, I'm afraid. And Vern Buerg, the author, is not likely to
> ever port it to Windows. It's written almost entirely in assembly, and
> making that a 32-bit app is just not going to happen. Too bad, really, but
> I understand.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
>
> roman modic wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Lynn's favourite app is a great little DOS application that will never
>>> get ported - LIST. I run my copy of LIST in a Win95 VM that I have here.
>>> Works fine for my needs.

>>
>> Is there no 32-bit alternative to LIST? For example
>> I use 32-bit "FAR Manager" instead of 16-bit
>> "Norton Commander":
>> http://farmanager.com/index.php?l=en
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander
>>
>> Roman

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
I'm sure that's true. There are lots of legacy applications still out there,
certainly. And they probably shouldn't be running on Windows x64. But they
also should do quite well running in a virtual machine, since very few of
them are likely to care about USB ports or Firewire ports, etc.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


DP wrote:
> Let me take a guess at what I think Lynn is referring to. If I'm wrong, I
> apologize.
> I'd be willing to bet that if you went across America and looked into the
> factories, distribution plants, printing plants, dairies, meat packers,
> etc, you'll find a lot of them with computers that are using old DOS
> programs to monitor and control activities. This could be running
> manufacturing machinery and printing presses, controlling inventory, even
> doing payroll and accounts payable/receivable.
> It could be that the original creator of this program went out of
> business a long time ago in one of the many shakeouts in the industry. Or
> it could be the creator of the program never had the programming moxie to
> bring it up to date in a reliable fashion so that it could work on later
> editions of Windows.
> Meanwhile, the end users possibly didn't have the bucks to upgrade. Or
> maybe they were using an old computer system and the DOS program worked
> for them. Anyway, I'm speculating here, but suffice it to say that in the
> real world where profit and loss matter, you might find that the end
> users are not as techonologically cutting edge as we x64 users might be.
> There's all sorts of reasons that businesses have had to stick with
> mission-critical DOS programs. Eventually, they'll have to upgrade
> computers as old ones die off. But when they go looking for new computers
> and OS's, they're probably going to look for ones that can still run
> their old DOS programs. Lynn, was I close?
>
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Og7i%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> no. There is not, I'm afraid. And Vern Buerg, the author, is not likely
>> to ever port it to Windows. It's written almost entirely in assembly, and
>> making that a 32-bit app is just not going to happen. Too bad, really,
>> but I understand.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>>
>> roman modic wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Lynn's favourite app is a great little DOS application that will never
>>>> get ported - LIST. I run my copy of LIST in a Win95 VM that I have
>>>> here. Works fine for my needs.
>>>
>>> Is there no 32-bit alternative to LIST? For example
>>> I use 32-bit "FAR Manager" instead of 16-bit
>>> "Norton Commander":
>>> http://farmanager.com/index.php?l=en
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander
>>>
>>> Roman



 
Reply With Quote
 
Lynn McGuire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2006
> Let me take a guess at what I think Lynn is referring to. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
> I'd be willing to bet that if you went across America and looked into the factories, distribution plants, printing plants,
> dairies, meat packers, etc, you'll find a lot of them with computers that are using old DOS programs to monitor and control
> activities. This could be running manufacturing machinery and printing presses, controlling inventory, even doing payroll and
> accounts payable/receivable.
> It could be that the original creator of this program went out of business a long time ago in one of the many shakeouts in the
> industry. Or it could be the creator of the program never had the programming moxie to bring it up to date in a reliable fashion
> so that it could work on later editions of Windows.
> Meanwhile, the end users possibly didn't have the bucks to upgrade. Or maybe they were using an old computer system and the DOS
> program worked for them.
> Anyway, I'm speculating here, but suffice it to say that in the real world where profit and loss matter, you might find that the
> end users are not as techonologically cutting edge as we x64 users might be. There's all sorts of reasons that businesses have had
> to stick with mission-critical DOS programs. Eventually, they'll have to upgrade computers as old ones die off. But when they go
> looking for new computers and OS's, they're probably going to look for ones that can still run their old DOS programs.
> Lynn, was I close?


Yup, my prediction is that people will be screaming when they get
Windows x64 on their latest box and try to run their Dos16 or Win16
mission critical app on it.

My OPINION is that MS is missing the boat here on forwards
compatibility. These apps need to work out of the box.

I dont even care if MS automatically installs their own virtual environment.
I just want a default solution that works out of the box.

Lynn


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Boy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2006
Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Yup, my prediction is that people will be

screaming when they get
> Windows x64 on their latest box and try to run their Dos16 or Win16
> mission critical app on it.
>
> My OPINION is that MS is missing the boat here on forwards
> compatibility. These apps need to work out of the box.
>
> I dont even care if MS automatically installs their own virtual environment.
> I just want a default solution that works out of the box.
>
> Lynn
>
>


And I suppose you want your old black and white
Capehart TV to display OTA HDTV without any
additional hardware?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is wsgi ready for prime time? Ron Garret Python 8 05-17-2007 11:18 PM
VS2005 Not ready for prime time CMM ASP .Net 11 02-09-2006 04:18 PM
Not ready for prime time John Barnes Windows 64bit 16 06-06-2005 08:15 PM
Firefox...not ready for prime time. Jim L Firefox 21 02-17-2005 02:05 PM
Prime numbers: addative property modulo p, where p is prime Jeremy Fischer Perl Misc 0 01-16-2005 05:53 PM



Advertisments