Installed MS Office 2.0 some months ago with it just for fun. It actually works pretty well apart from the dictionary files, for some reason those are not recognized<p><a href="https://files.catbox.moe/dy4bqy.png" rel="nofollow">https://files.catbox.moe/dy4bqy.png</a><p>I’ve used it for a week just I was curious:<p>1, is it good enough for modern day to day word processing (mostly emails)? Yes it is<p>2, can the modern word processors (Office 365, LibreOffice, Google Docs) recognize and open the files created with it? (doc, rtf anything but plain text) Yes they can
For work, not due to other requirements, however for personal documents I fully agree with your first point, MS Office 2.0 is good enough to type in some snail letters, school reports or CVs.
The crazy thing is, if you have 10 office windows open on a MacBook with 16GB, it brings the system absolutely to its knees.<p>But the functionally most use would be mostly there with office 95 at the latest (except for syncing).<p>Why does software nowadays use 1000x the resources of software 25 years ago, but only provides minimally more useful features.
And a refreshingly straightforward UI compared to modern behemoths.
Nice, I will be able to play Civ2 on Windows 11!<p>In related news, with the latest WINE on Linux 16 bits/32 bits applications are supported, so I was able to run my beloved Civilization 2 without problems.
I really don't understand why Microsoft didn't build this when they released 64 bit windows.<p>16 bit windows wasn't complicated, and a simple VM and API translation layer could have kept compatibility going back 30+ years for not many engineering hours.<p>Yet instead they dropped 16 bit windows support and probably spent more engineering hours to support all the ancient software trying to update, and users who held back upgrading windows because they needed said ancient software, etc
By the time 64 bit Windows comes around the only stuff still running 16 bit is on machines that will never be updated. Embedded boxes in industrial machinery that is itself no longer supported, that sort of thing. No point making it work if nobody will ever update to it.
On the other hand, I'd argue companies using 16-bit applications would be unwilling to upgrade to a 64-bit installation anyway. Microsoft decided it was better to push software developers to upgrade to Win32, given that 32-bit Windows already existed since 95.
Sure, but the 16-bit program that was still being used the most had to be setup.exe or install.exe. For many years it was common to distribute all software packages with a 16-bit installer because it's (slightly) smaller and it's never doing anything that would require 32-bit processing.<p>So, now, it's not unusual to find software from as late as 2005 that is actually 32-bit software, but it's in a 16-bit installer.<p>Indeed, it might be the <i>only</i> 16-bit application I've wanted to run other than Castle of the Winds and Scorched Earth.
being able to transfer HANDLEs across the 16/32-bit boundary notably for COM/OLE integration becomes a lot more painful<p>Microsoft says at <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/running-32-bit-applications" rel="nofollow">https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/ru...</a>:<p>> Note that 64-bit Windows does not support running 16-bit Windows-based applications. The primary reason is that handles have 32 significant bits on 64-bit Windows. Therefore, handles cannot be truncated and passed to 16-bit applications without loss of data. Attempts to launch 16-bit applications fail with the following error: ERROR_BAD_EXE_FORMAT.<p>winevdm on Windows eschews that level of integration, but perhaps MS should have shipped WoW16 with limitations instead of nothing.
Oh my good, windows 3.1x.... good old times and a word application that never crashed!
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Finally, 16-bit Windows support for 64-bit Windows.