Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c

Re:Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c by enriquto on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @03:44AM (#23308444)

> I wish desktop Linux had even a fraction of that level of backwards compatibility.

The compatibility is mostly at the level of the source code. You can compile linux programs from 20 years ago and run them. The only friction is that the compiler may print a few warnings. Binary compatibility is a moot point when you can recompile stuff so easily.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c by xtracto on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @04:18AM (#23308603)

I tried to run Soldier of Fortune for Linux (of Loki fame) and it isnt possible due to 32/62bit compatibility issues. I cant imagine running 16bit software...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c by Narishma on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @04:59AM (#23308806)

Linux doesn't have 16-bit software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c by c22 on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @12:53PM (#23313462)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeddable_Linux_Kernel_Subset

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c by Narishma on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @01:29PM (#23313967)

Does that have any interesting 16-bit software you might want to run on Linux?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining Windows 1.0 Hello.c by c22 on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @02:49PM (#23314989)

Well, it's at least interesting enough to exist, beyond that I couldn't say. Bit subjective of a goal post don't you think?

[ Parent | on HN ]