16bit apps on XP64 in virtual pc
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
Prev: 64 bit programs going in x86 folder
Next: DRIVER
From: Tom Ferguson on 25 Jan 2008 15:21 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" <ssubzero(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-21807bf500aa(a)z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na(a)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.
From: Charlie Russel - MVP on 25 Jan 2008 16:15 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" <ssubzero(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-21807bf500aa(a)z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na(a)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.
From: Zootal on 25 Jan 2008 16:34 "S.SubZero" <ssubzero(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-21807bf500aa(a)z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na(a)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
From: Charlie Russel - MVP on 25 Jan 2008 16:49 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" <msnews(a)zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23PP0Ap5XIHA.5816(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "S.SubZero" <ssubzero(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7ef23c08-635f-4504-9726-21807bf500aa(a)z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On Jan 24, 10:45 pm, jorgen <na(a)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 >
From: Jason Gurtz on 25 Jan 2008 16:57
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 -- |