Pelles C forum
Pelles C => General discussions => Topic started by: leandrojardim on April 21, 2011, 11:45:17 PM
-
Hi, everybody! :)
I would like to know if some of the previous versions of Pelles C could be able to compile Win16 code to run under Windows 3.11? Not that matters much, but I would like to experiment with Win16 code a bit.
Currently I am trying the 4.50 version, because its the most compatible, running on 9X, ME, 2000, Vista and 7. Very good work!
-
I would like to know if some of the previous versions of Pelles C could be able to compile Win16 code to run under Windows 3.11? Not that matters much, but I would like to experiment with Win16 code a bit.
AFAIK there was not version of Pelles C which could compile Win16 code.
If you need this, you can try Open Watcom http://www.openwatcom.com/ (http://www.openwatcom.com/), Digital Mars http://www.digitalmars.com/ (http://www.digitalmars.com/) or LADsoft CC386 http://www.members.tripod.com/~ladsoft/cc386.htm (http://www.members.tripod.com/~ladsoft/cc386.htm).
-
What's the reason of your interest to Windows 3.11 ? , an abandoned OS
-
Hi, everybody! :)
I would like to know if some of the previous versions of Pelles C could be able to compile Win16 code to run under Windows 3.11? Not that matters much, but I would like to experiment with Win16 code a bit.
Currently I am trying the 4.50 version, because its the most compatible, running on 9X, ME, 2000, Vista and 7. Very good work!
All windows operating systems before 2000 are currently "Abandonware", that is, there is no support no updates and no new programs being written for these operating systems. MS-DOS and thus (Windows 95, 98 and ME) won't even run on 32 and 64 bit CPUs...
So I have to share stephen's curiosity about why you need this...
-
All windows operating systems before 2000 are currently "Abandonware", that is, there is no support no updates and no new programs being written for these operating systems...
There are poor people using computers with these versions, I would like to help them and develop one or other program. Also, I think its a simpler environment to program, than Windows 7 with .NET and XNA. It continues being a cool system to know and use (we used it decades ago).
...MS-DOS and thus (Windows 95, 98 and ME) won't even run on 32 and 64 bit CPUs...
I would like to use an emulator to run these versions of Windows.
-
...MS-DOS and thus (Windows 95, 98 and ME) won't even run on 32 and 64 bit CPUs...
I would like to use an emulator to run these versions of Windows.
You do not need to use an emulator for these Windows versions.
A virtual system will allow you to run them inside a Window.
VirtualBox supports guests starting with Windows 3.1 and even only DOS.
Windows 95 and above should work on more recent systems, if they are not too exotic, since there might be driver issues.
If you use the Windows Server 2003 SDK help system you will find enough information, which API functions are supported prior to Windows XP.
-
Near the bottom of this thread...
http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?topic=89.msg12886#msg12886
... there is a link to the complete Win98 SDK...
If you are bent upon finding a 16 bit compiler Google for Borland Turbo C...
-
There are poor people using computers with these versions, I would like to help them and develop one or other program. Also, I think its a simpler environment to program, than Windows 7 with .NET and XNA. It continues being a cool system to know and use (we used it decades ago).
And most of those systems (386 or newer) will support windows 2000 ... You'd be doing them a bigger favour to update to that rather than trying to write stuff for 16 bit systems.
-
There are poor people using computers with these versions, I would like to help them and develop one or other program. Also, I think its a simpler environment to program, than Windows 7 with .NET and XNA. It continues being a cool system to know and use (we used it decades ago).
And most of those systems (386 or newer) will support windows 2000 ... You'd be doing them a bigger favour to update to that rather than trying to write stuff for 16 bit systems.
Not knowing why the OP wants do to this, this is a bold statement.
Whatever his reason is, it might be very well reasonable to write software for 16 bit systems. Doesn't have to be anything YOU like or see worth pursuing... ;-)
MS-DOS and thus (Windows 95, 98 and ME) won't even run on 32 and 64 bit CPUs...
Unless you refer to "64 bit CPU" as in Itanium, this statement is simply wrong...
Ralf
-
There are poor people using computers with these versions, I would like to help them and develop one or other program. Also, I think its a simpler environment to program, than Windows 7 with .NET and XNA. It continues being a cool system to know and use (we used it decades ago).
And most of those systems (386 or newer) will support windows 2000 ... You'd be doing them a bigger favour to update to that rather than trying to write stuff for 16 bit systems.
Not knowing why the OP wants do to this, this is a bold statement.
Whatever his reason is, it might be very well reasonable to write software for 16 bit systems. Doesn't have to be anything YOU like or see worth pursuing... ;-)
MS-DOS and thus (Windows 95, 98 and ME) won't even run on 32 and 64 bit CPUs...
Unless you refer to "64 bit CPU" as in Itanium, this statement is simply wrong...
Ralf
I already provided advice about 16 bit compilers that can be found on the net.
But there are more issues than just 16 bit vs 32 bit... there's also the problem of finding drivers if they have to replace hardware such as a video or network card... or finding dlls and libraries to support what they are doing... When things get abandoned --and 16 bit OSs are well and truly abandoned-- all kinds of things start getting in the way. The older they are the worse it gets. At least if they can get the systems to run 32 bit OSs, they can still find drivers (win 2000 will use xp drivers in most cases) and software development will be eased considerably with modern compilers and libraries available.
And MS-DOS has not booted up on AMD CPUs since before the 32bit XP chips. Win3.1 isn't going to work on AMD either.
Some intel 32 bit chips (celeron?) do still support MS-DOS but none of the newer 64 bit chips do.