Hacker News

points by lupical 3 days ago | 0 comments

On the other hand, I'd argue companies using 16-bit applications would be unwilling to upgrade to a 64-bit installation anyway. Microsoft decided it was better to push software developers to upgrade to Win32, given that 32-bit Windows already existed since 95.

[–] da_chicken 3 days ago

Sure, but the 16-bit program that was still being used the most had to be setup.exe or install.exe. For many years it was common to distribute all software packages with a 16-bit installer because it's (slightly) smaller and it's never doing anything that would require 32-bit processing.

So, now, it's not unusual to find software from as late as 2005 that is actually 32-bit software, but it's in a 16-bit installer.

Indeed, it might be the only 16-bit application I've wanted to run other than Castle of the Winds and Scorched Earth.

[–] masfuerte 2 days ago

Not that it matters, but the reason MS recommended a 16-bit installer was that non-Intel Windows NT variants could run 16-bit x86 software via emulation. Windows software that ran on multiple architectures (what little there was) typically had a tiny 16-bit x86 setup program that checked the architecture and launched a native 32-bit installer.

Edited to add: x86-only software had a similar tiny 16-bit setup program that launched the 32-bit installer on x86, and displayed a helpful error message on other architectures. This was done because Windows had a piss-poor error message if you ran a 32-bit exe on the wrong architecture.