16bit apps on XP64 in virtual pc

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Zootal, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    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?
     
    Zootal, Jan 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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?
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Zootal

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    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, Jan 25, 2008
    #3
  4. Zootal

    jorgen Guest

    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
     
    jorgen, Jan 25, 2008
    #4
  5. Zootal

    S.SubZero Guest

    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, Jan 25, 2008
    #5
  6. Zootal

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    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:...
    > 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.
     
    Tom Ferguson, Jan 25, 2008
    #6
  7. 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:...
    > 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 25, 2008
    #7
  8. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    "S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Zootal, Jan 25, 2008
    #8
  9. 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:...
    >> 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, Jan 25, 2008
    #9
  10. Zootal

    Jason Gurtz Guest

    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

    --
     
    Jason Gurtz, Jan 25, 2008
    #10
  11. Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 25, 2008
    #11
  12. Zootal

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Tom.

    Now you've done it! The Z80 was my first CPU, in the original TRS-80, in
    December 1977, 30 years ago last month. There are fond memories, but I
    don't think I want to go back there. ;^}

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64)

    "Tom Ferguson" <> wrote in message
    news:#$p8S$...
    > 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:...
    >> 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.
     
    R. C. White, Jan 26, 2008
    #12
  13. Zootal

    DP Guest

    "Zootal" <> wrote in message
    news:ul%...
    > So, here is a question - I'm running XP64 (yeah, still...).


    No need to feel bad about that. I'm sure you'll find lots of users here
    committed to XP X64 and don't plan to go to Vista 64.
    I have both on my machine.
     
    DP, Jan 26, 2008
    #13
  14. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    >> So, here is a question - I'm running XP64 (yeah, still...).
    >
    > No need to feel bad about that. I'm sure you'll find lots of users here
    > committed to XP X64 and don't plan to go to Vista 64.
    > I have both on my machine.
    >


    My comment was actually a reference to all of the complaining I've done
    about XP64 :). There are a few things that won't run under XP64, and I've
    come close to scrapping it and going back to XP32. But now that I've got a
    VM running Win2000 (because I don't have any spare XP32 keys), I find that
    the things that XP64 won't do seem to work well in the VM.

    Vista 32/64 really isn't an option for me. It does *nothing* that I need or
    want that XP won't do. And I don't need an OS that is likely to ask me "did
    you want to click the mouse button?", "Did you really want to click the
    mouse button?", "Are you really sure you wanted to click the mouse button?",
    "Access denied! Clicking the mouse is a security hazard, and you are not
    allowed to do that".....
     
    Zootal, Jan 26, 2008
    #14
  15. Zootal

    Graham Guest

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > 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.


    I think you'll find you are very confused as to why they don't work.
    It's that the operating system isn't allowing the segmented addressing
    scheme that 16-bits apps require. Otherwise a 16-bit app could work just
    fine within a 64-bit address space, the same as a 32-bit app could.

    Your explanation would hold water for why you can't run a 64- or 32-bit
    app in a 16-bit address space (can't fit 64 bits into 16), not vice versa.
     
    Graham, Jan 27, 2008
    #15
  16. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    > I think you'll find you are very confused as to why they don't work. It's
    > that the operating system isn't allowing the segmented addressing scheme
    > that 16-bits apps require. Otherwise a 16-bit app could work just fine
    > within a 64-bit address space, the same as a 32-bit app could.


    I'm guessing this is a intentional design, not an inherent limitation?
     
    Zootal, Jan 27, 2008
    #16
  17. Zootal

    Graham Guest

    Zootal wrote:
    >> I think you'll find you are very confused as to why they don't work. It's
    >> that the operating system isn't allowing the segmented addressing scheme
    >> that 16-bits apps require. Otherwise a 16-bit app could work just fine
    >> within a 64-bit address space, the same as a 32-bit app could.

    >
    > I'm guessing this is a intentional design, not an inherent limitation?


    I believe this was an operating system design decision, rather than an
    actual processor limitation, yes. I believe it was the correct decision,
    especially as there are several ways to run 16-bit apps if you really
    must, such as virtualization (VPC or VMware) or emulation (Bochs).

    Graham.
     
    Graham, Jan 28, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Faz

    XP Error meesage:16Bit Windows Subsystem

    Faz, Oct 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    473
  2. Terry

    8bit vs. 16bit color

    Terry, Oct 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    549
    andre
    Oct 26, 2004
  3. The Master of The Known Universe

    Top 3 firewalls, anti-virus apps, anti-spyware apps

    The Master of The Known Universe, May 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,091
    clouds
    May 13, 2006
  4. Willy David Jr
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,572
    Willy David Jr
    Jan 9, 2007
  5. london1919
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,059
    Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)
    Dec 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page