On Friday, December 22, 2006, 16:12:28, Tony wrote: > On Win 2000 I could run almost all 16-bit apps. > When I switched to Win XP many of the apps didn't work anymore.
All 16bit programs I tried worked just fine on Windows 2003 (slightly newer kernel than XP), I never had any problems (I was playing with old shareware CD I found somewhere). I did have to set a few programs to run in "Windows 95" compatibility mode, but that's all. > OTOH a software company should be very aware of the MS/Intel/AMD marketing. > Very soon the masses will consider everything without a Vista label unsafe. I seriously doubt that - according to market research, not more than 5% are planning to downgrade to Vista next year - Vista's hardware requirements are too high (not to mention it's DRM - see eg. <http://p2pnet.net/story/10823> ). > And everything that isn't 64-bit half the speed of 32-bit apps. Uhh, what? Benchmarks show 5-15% speed increase when going from 32->64bit on the same hardware. > Not because it's true, but because of the marketing of especially Intel and > MS. Intel? Intel was hiding that it's CPUs supported long mode for a long long time. -- < Jernej Simonèiè ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ > Anyone who is popular is bound to be disliked. -- Law of Friendship ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
