Most active commenters
  • bigfatkitten(4)

←back to thread

Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?

(devblogs.microsoft.com)
304 points mooreds | 15 comments | 17 Nov 24 19:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.625s | source | bottom
Show context
Animats ◴[17 Nov 24 22:11 UTC] No.42167811[source]▶
Because, when they did it right, in Windows NT 3.51, the users with legacy 16 bit applications screamed. There was a 16-bit DOS compatibility box, but it wasn't bug-compatible with DOS.

Microsoft underestimated the inertia of the applications market. NT 3.51 was fine if you used it as a pure 32-bit operating system. You could even configure it without DOS compatibility. Few did.

replies(3): >>42167845 #>>42168418 #>>42171920 #
Onavo ◴[17 Nov 24 22:15 UTC] No.42167845[source]▶
Something the Unix world can certainly learn from.
replies(1): >>42168874 #
bigfatkitten ◴[18 Nov 24 01:21 UTC] No.42168874[source]▶
Sun used to take binary compatibility very seriously. Solaris 8 (and perhaps later releases) still had a compatibility layer for SunOS 4.x binaries. Solaris 11 can still run Solaris 2.6 binaries.

Linux is another matter entirely, if your binaries run at all from one distribution release to the next you're doing well.

replies(3): >>42168999 #>>42172012 #>>42181685 #
1. ghssds ◴[18 Nov 24 01:43 UTC] No.42168999[source]▶
Linux doesn't need binary compatibility as much as Windows, lot of source packages will compile right away with a vast array of different operating systems, typically excluding Windows but including Linux, and Linux is a few clicks away from running a fair number of MS-DOS and Windows applications, probably more than any single Windows version. Linux is king in compatibility.
replies(4): >>42169143 #>>42170100 #>>42170858 #>>42171744 #
2. bigfatkitten ◴[18 Nov 24 02:18 UTC] No.42169143[source]▶
That doesn't help you at all when you don't have the source and even then, compiler changes break source compatibility all the time.
replies(1): >>42169623 #
3. Onavo ◴[18 Nov 24 04:03 UTC] No.42169623[source]▶
Not just Linux, Mac too (people forget that they run a certified BSD kernel).
replies(1): >>42189507 #
4. nikanj ◴[18 Nov 24 06:02 UTC] No.42170100[source]▶
That's great when you're distributing your software for free and giving away the source code too, but it's a complete non-starter for commercial software.
replies(1): >>42171460 #
5. bigstrat2003 ◴[18 Nov 24 08:59 UTC] No.42170858[source]▶
Linux needs binary compatibility every bit as much as Windows. Even among people who are nerdy enough to run Linux on the desktop, very few are interested in compiling software to make it work.
replies(1): >>42171854 #
6. cloudbonsai ◴[18 Nov 24 11:22 UTC] No.42171460[source]▶
This discussion feels a bit ancient to me.

Considering that desktop apps nowadays rely on web counterparts to be functional, most commerecial apps will stop running after some time, regardless of whether operating systems keep compatibility or not.

replies(2): >>42172036 #>>42178190 #
7. johannes1234321 ◴[18 Nov 24 12:19 UTC] No.42171744[source]▶
Even if you get the source youbend up with incompatibilities. From compiler to libraries. (Especially when reaching GUI/Gnome etc.)

Systems like Solaris are a lot more restricted what sets of libraries they provide (not "package up everything in the world" as some linux distros) but what they provide they keep working. (I haven't touched an Solaris system in a long time, but assume they didn't start massive "innovation" since then)

8. hiatus ◴[18 Nov 24 12:42 UTC] No.42171854[source]▶
> Even among people who are nerdy enough to run Linux on the desktop, very few are interested in compiling software to make it work.

I would imagine most desktop linux users rely on maintainers to compile and distribute binaries for their particular flavor.

replies(2): >>42176152 #>>42176578 #
9. robinsonb5 ◴[18 Nov 24 13:14 UTC] No.42172036{3}[source]▶
Surely you've just outlined the very best reason to keep alive old applications that don't require a web counterpart!

Personally I want to keep GuitarPro 6 alive (There's no newer version for Linux because binary software distribution on Linux wasn't worth the trouble) and Quartus 13.1 (because I still write cores for a CycloneIII-based device and 13.1 is the last version to support that chip.)

10. Suppafly ◴[18 Nov 24 19:46 UTC] No.42176152{3}[source]▶
>I would imagine most desktop linux users rely on maintainers to compile and distribute binaries for their particular flavor.

Which is less ideal than just having general binaries that work.

11. bigfatkitten ◴[18 Nov 24 20:28 UTC] No.42176578{3}[source]▶
I maintain a package for which the upstream source hasn't changed in about 23 years. I still need to intervene once or twice a year because something else changes in the distro to cause that package to no longer build or run.
replies(1): >>42177742 #
12. EasyMark ◴[18 Nov 24 22:21 UTC] No.42177742{4}[source]▶
As someone who still uses older software, thank you for your service! I still use Dia and xfig (because I’ve built up tons of “blocks” for them) and appreciate people donating their time to keep some ancient software going :)
13. bigfatkitten ◴[18 Nov 24 23:11 UTC] No.42178190{3}[source]▶
Not every desktop app these days is an electron monstrosity. Especially not if it's a commercial app.
replies(1): >>42181773 #
14. account42 ◴[19 Nov 24 10:06 UTC] No.42181773{4}[source]▶
IME Electron is more popular among commercial apps.
15. int_19h ◴[20 Nov 24 00:16 UTC] No.42189507{3}[source]▶
Macs uses FreeBSD as the foundation for their base system, but the kernel itself is a Mach derivative.