←back to thread

Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?

(devblogs.microsoft.com)
305 points mooreds | 5 comments | 17 Nov 24 19:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.854s | source
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. Suppafly ◴[18 Nov 24 19:46 UTC] No.42176152[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.

4. bigfatkitten ◴[18 Nov 24 20:28 UTC] No.42176578[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 #
5. EasyMark ◴[18 Nov 24 22:21 UTC] No.42177742{3}[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 :)