«

So, here is a question - I'm running XP64 (yeah, still...). I can't run any
of my 16 bit apps. However, today I installed VirtualPC2007, and installed
Win2000. From there, 16 bit apps work. Why? What is it about XP64 that 16
but apps don't run, yet I can run them from a virtual pc running in XP64?

The addressible range of x64 requires greater than 16bits so 16-bit software
cannot run. Since the Win2000 vm is a 32-bit system the 16-bit apps can
work.

"Zootal" <> wrote in message
news:ul%...
> So, here is a question - I'm running XP64 (yeah, still...). I can't run
> any of my 16 bit apps. However, today I installed VirtualPC2007, and
> installed Win2000. From there, 16 bit apps work. Why? What is it about
> XP64 that 16 but apps don't run, yet I can run them from a virtual pc
> running in XP64?
>

To put it another way, neither XP64 nor Vista 64 include a
Windows-on-Windows (WoW) 16 system that would provide the support needed for
16 bit applications to run on the 64 bit OS. They do include a WoW 32
system. VPC 2007 or similar provides support.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

"Zootal" <> wrote in message
news:ul%...
> So, here is a question - I'm running XP64 (yeah, still...). I can't run
> any of my 16 bit apps. However, today I installed VirtualPC2007, and
> installed Win2000. From there, 16 bit apps work. Why? What is it about
> XP64 that 16 but apps don't run, yet I can run them from a virtual pc
> running in XP64?
>

Tom Ferguson wrote:
> To put it another way, neither XP64 nor Vista 64 include a
> Windows-on-Windows (WoW) 16 system that would provide the support needed
> for 16 bit applications to run on the 64 bit OS. They do include a WoW
> 32 system. VPC 2007 or similar provides support.
>
> Tom
> MSMVP 1998-2007
>

To add a bit. If Microsoft wanted, they could make such a subsystem.
Both amd and intel has support for it

On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:

> To add a bit. If Microsoft wanted, they could make such a subsystem.
> Both amd and intel has support for it

To add a bit more, Microsoft could choose to support CP/M apps too.

WHERE IS THE BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY MICROSOFT??!

Sometimes ya just gotta let to. 16-bit was good while it lasted, now
it's time to go.

Actually, there are emulators to run cp/m on a VM which virtualizes a Zilog
80.
http://www.dcast.vbox.co.uk/cpm_over.html
for one.
"MyZ80 is a high performance Z80 CPU software emulator for PCs. Thanks to
some very serious optimisation, it is the fastest and most accurate Z80
emulator available."

I suggest you run this emulator in VirtualPC 2007 on Vista.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

"S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-...
> On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:
>
>> To add a bit. If Microsoft wanted, they could make such a subsystem.
>> Both amd and intel has support for it
>
> To add a bit more, Microsoft could choose to support CP/M apps too.
>
> WHERE IS THE BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY MICROSOFT??!
>
> Sometimes ya just gotta let to. 16-bit was good while it lasted, now
> it's time to go.

Yes. MS made a deliberate decision here, and it's a wise one I think. In
order to support 16 bit applications, they'd have had to do things that
would compromise both stability and security. Instead, they drew a line in
the sand, and I think it makes sense in the long run. If you need to run 16
bit apps, Virtual Server/Virtual PC are viable options to do so.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-...
> On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:
>
>> To add a bit. If Microsoft wanted, they could make such a subsystem.
>> Both amd and intel has support for it
>
> To add a bit more, Microsoft could choose to support CP/M apps too.
>
> WHERE IS THE BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY MICROSOFT??!
>
> Sometimes ya just gotta let to. 16-bit was good while it lasted, now
> it's time to go.

"S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-...
> On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:
>
>> To add a bit. If Microsoft wanted, they could make such a subsystem.
>> Both amd and intel has support for it
>
> To add a bit more, Microsoft could choose to support CP/M apps too.
>
> WHERE IS THE BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY MICROSOFT??!
>
> Sometimes ya just gotta let to. 16-bit was good while it lasted, now
> it's time to go.

When I have to. I still use an old DOS editor called Brief every now and
then, and I think Symantec Visual Page is either 16 bit, or is otherwise
non-compatible with XP64. However, the main reason I setup a virtual PC was
so I could run the stuff that won't work in XP64, such as the VPN clients -
neither Cisco nor CheckPoint support XP64, and I have to use them. So, I run
a Win2000 VM, and in it I install the CheckPoint VPN client, which works
just fine even though it won't install in XP64. And within the Win2000 VM I
remote into my hosts. Works good, actually

Makes perfect sense to me. (And I remember Brief. But I abandoned it for vi,
and now use GVim as my primary editor on all platforms. )

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Zootal" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>
> "S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
> news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-...
>> On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> To add a bit. If Microsoft wanted, they could make such a subsystem.
>>> Both amd and intel has support for it
>>
>> To add a bit more, Microsoft could choose to support CP/M apps too.
>>
>> WHERE IS THE BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY MICROSOFT??!
>>
>> Sometimes ya just gotta let to. 16-bit was good while it lasted, now
>> it's time to go.
>
> When I have to. I still use an old DOS editor called Brief every now and
> then, and I think Symantec Visual Page is either 16 bit, or is otherwise
> non-compatible with XP64. However, the main reason I setup a virtual PC
> was so I could run the stuff that won't work in XP64, such as the VPN
> clients - neither Cisco nor CheckPoint support XP64, and I have to use
> them. So, I run a Win2000 VM, and in it I install the CheckPoint VPN
> client, which works just fine even though it won't install in XP64. And
> within the Win2000 VM I remote into my hosts. Works good, actually
>

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> But I abandoned it for vi, and now use GVim as my primary editor on
> all platforms. )

Damn that's sweet...I am not alone! =)

~JasonG

--