Why won't 16-bit installers run on 64-bit systems?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by djarvinen, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. djarvinen

    djarvinen Guest

    I'm having a problem loading an old Autocad (32 bit) but apparently it
    uses a 16-bit installer.

    I know that the 64-bit architecture is a superset of the 32-bit
    architeture so anything written for a 32-bit machine 'should' run on a
    64-bit machine. But what is so magic about a 16-bit program?

    Thanks.
     
    djarvinen, Jul 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I don't really think it would be technologically impossible to make it
    support that. If I am not wrong, I think I can remember seeing somewhere
    that MS decided to leave it out on grounds of 'wisdom'. This way they could
    apparently create a faster, leaner and more stable OS, using far less
    man-hours - which you can choose to believe or not, having seen the wonders
    of XP x64, I choose to believe!

    As a side note - software developers who want to have their products
    supported for any length of time shouldn't still be offering 16bit software.
    If you are a fan of something specific - or just plain nostalgic, there's a
    workaround! Install it on to a 32bit machine and make a back-up and restore
    it on the 64bit - you may have some configuration to go through, but it
    should work for the most part.

    Then again - you could run a suitable OS in a Virtual Machine!


    Tony. . .



    "djarvinen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm having a problem loading an old Autocad (32 bit) but apparently it
    > uses a 16-bit installer.
    >
    > I know that the 64-bit architecture is a superset of the 32-bit
    > architeture so anything written for a 32-bit machine 'should' run on a
    > 64-bit machine. But what is so magic about a 16-bit program?
    >
    > Thanks.
     
    Tony Sperling, Jul 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. djarvinen

    djarvinen Guest

    On Jul 16, 3:32 pm, "Tony Sperling" <>
    wrote:
    > I don't really think it would be technologically impossible to make it
    > support that. If I am not wrong, I think I can remember seeing somewhere
    > that MS decided to leave it out on grounds of 'wisdom'. This way they could
    > apparently create a faster, leaner and more stable OS, using far less
    > man-hours - which you can choose to believe or not, having seen the wonders
    > of XP x64, I choose to believe!
    >
    > As a side note - software developers who want to have their products
    > supported for any length of time shouldn't still be offering 16bit software.
    > If you are a fan of something specific - or just plain nostalgic, there's a
    > workaround! Install it on to a 32bit machine and make a back-up and restore
    > it on the 64bit - you may have some configuration to go through, but it
    > should work for the most part.
    >
    > Then again - you could run a suitable OS in a Virtual Machine!
    >
    > Tony.


    Thanks, good suggestions.

    I was just hoping for a 'quick & dirty' fix; sounds like it may not
    exist. And I really was curious what technical issue prevents some
    (all?)16-bit programs from running on 64-bit platforms. I could
    understand (somewhat) if there were some hardware issues involved but
    sheesh... this is just code, which is supposedly backwards compatible.
     
    djarvinen, Jul 17, 2008
    #3
  4. Microsoft made a decision to not support ANY 16-bit applications, nor do
    they support DOS applications. There are myriad reasons for this, both
    technical and good business sense, but the simplest reason is that providing
    support would have compromised the security of the entire system. The 16 bit
    applications expect to be able to talk directly to the hardware, and that is
    not allowed. Plus very few of them were written to prevent the kinds of
    attacks that we face today, and would be highly vulnerable.

    Charlie.

    "djarvinen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm having a problem loading an old Autocad (32 bit) but apparently it
    > uses a 16-bit installer.
    >
    > I know that the 64-bit architecture is a superset of the 32-bit
    > architeture so anything written for a 32-bit machine 'should' run on a
    > 64-bit machine. But what is so magic about a 16-bit program?
    >
    > Thanks.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 17, 2008
    #4
  5. Well, as I see it, 'Backwards Compatibility' died when they killed DOS!

    The technical issue is probably related to how you go about converting
    'Calling Convention' issues in the compiler. This has been polished into a
    glorious technology (called 'Thunking') many years ago, but the obstacle of
    carrying it over from 16 to 64 bits may be a tough one if the technology can
    only return numbers that the 'other' system cannot handle anyway? Realize
    the power of the binary 'Power of Two'.

    There is no doubt that they could have done it, I think. But contemplate the
    cost. This is a new computing world, better to leave 16bits in the dust, I'm
    sure.

    Your 'quick and dirty fix', has to be the VM, or a network. But my own
    experience is that when you have payed the (B)ill (pun intended!) for
    something new that complements your entire system (which probably wasn't
    cheap to begin with), you stop thinking about the money for to start
    enjoying!


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Jul 17, 2008
    #5
  6. djarvinen

    Graham Guest

    djarvinen wrote:
    > And I really was curious what technical issue prevents some
    > (all?)16-bit programs from running on 64-bit platforms.


    The technical issue is that XP x64 and Vista 64 don't have the necessary
    mechanisms to handle segmented 16-bit address spaces. This was a choice
    Microsoft made for simplicity and security.

    It is quite possible to run 16-bit software on a 64-bit operating
    system, but if you want to do it with Windows, you are going to have to
    do it in a virtual machine using something like VMware, VirtualPC or
    VirtualBox. All are available in free versions (but the operating system
    you run inside them won't be if it is Windows.)
     
    Graham, Jul 17, 2008
    #6
    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. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,211
  2. Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    16-bit installers

    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Nov 8, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    516
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Nov 9, 2005
  3. Sam Steinhauser

    Installers. 16 bit, 32 bit

    Sam Steinhauser, Dec 22, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    543
    =?Utf-8?B?VGVycnk=?=
    Jan 2, 2006
  4. marty

    16bit installers

    marty, Jun 19, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    495
    Tony Sperling
    Jun 22, 2006
  5. Salty Dog

    Plastation modchip installers

    Salty Dog, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,167
Loading...

Share This Page