Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert

Google Duck does not know.

How about 8 bit?

"Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote

| Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
| | Google Duck does not know.
| | How about 8 bit?

Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
context and/or file format determine how you read it.

With executables it's different. The file format is
different. Win64 can run a 32-bit executable because
it uses a go-between to translate, for the sake of
backward compatibility. If you look up PE format
(portable executable) you'll see it's very complex.
Different types will be different. A 32-bit EXE will be
dealing with 32-bit pointers and the format of the
file itself will be 32-bit.

For example, if you have a DLL and something wants
to use a function, it will walk 32-bit pointers in the
file header. X points to offset Y. Y points to offset Z.
Eventually it finds the function name and gets a pointer
to that offset. Then it runs the function by execuuting the
code at that offset in the DLL. A 64-bit DLL will be
similar, but based on 64-bit values. So it's gibberish for
32-bit software.

I don't understand what "-run -running -convert" means
but maybe I answered the question?

Newyana2 wrote:
> "Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote
>
> | Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
> |
> | Google Duck does not know.
> |
> | How about 8 bit?
>
> Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
> is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
> A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
> context and/or file format determine how you read it.
>
> With executables it's different. The file format is
> different. Win64 can run a 32-bit executable because
> it uses a go-between to translate, for the sake of
> backward compatibility. If you look up PE format
> (portable executable) you'll see it's very complex.
> Different types will be different. A 32-bit EXE will be
> dealing with 32-bit pointers and the format of the
> file itself will be 32-bit.
>
> For example, if you have a DLL and something wants
> to use a function, it will walk 32-bit pointers in the
> file header. X points to offset Y. Y points to offset Z.
> Eventually it finds the function name and gets a pointer
> to that offset. Then it runs the function by execuuting the
> code at that offset in the DLL. A 64-bit DLL will be
> similar, but based on 64-bit values. So it's gibberish for
> 32-bit software.
>
> I don't understand what "-run -running -convert" means
> but maybe I answered the question?

Thank you, Newyana.
Sorry for the confusion. I copy / pasted my Google question and
included the boolean minuses so that Google would not return anything
related to run, running, and convert. It still works even though Google
says that boolean term no longer works. It still works with Ducky.

Paul in Houston TX wrote:

> I copy / pasted my Google question and
> included the boolean minuses so that Google would not return anything
> related to run, running, and convert.  It still works even though Google
> says that boolean term no longer works.  It still works with Ducky.

minus still works (and I think they say so) but plus no longer works, it
returns results without the required term.

On 9/24/2023 1:34 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul in Houston TX wrote:
>
>> I copy / pasted my Google question and included the boolean minuses so that Google would not return anything related to run, running, and convert.  It still works even though Google says that boolean term no longer works.  It still works with Ducky.
>
> minus still works (and I think they say so) but plus no longer works, it returns results without the required term.
>

Does using double quotes

smurf "father"

still work, to make "father" a mandatory term ?

I mean, the search sucks so bad sometimes, it's hard
to tell whether it's paying attention at all.

Paul

On 9/24/2023 1:08 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
>> "Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote
>>
>> | Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
>> |
>> | Google Duck does not know.
>> |
>> | How about 8 bit?
>>
>>     Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
>> is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
>> A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
>> context and/or file format determine how you read it.
>>
>>    With executables it's different. The file format is
>> different. Win64 can run a 32-bit executable because
>> it uses a go-between to translate, for the sake of
>> backward compatibility. If you look up PE format
>> (portable executable) you'll see it's very complex.
>> Different types will be different. A 32-bit EXE will be
>> dealing with 32-bit pointers and the format of the
>> file itself will be 32-bit.
>>
>>    For example, if you have a DLL and something wants
>> to use a function, it will walk 32-bit pointers in the
>> file header. X points to offset Y. Y points to offset Z.
>> Eventually it finds the function name and gets a pointer
>> to that offset. Then it runs the function by execuuting the
>> code at that offset in the DLL. A 64-bit DLL will be
>> similar, but based on 64-bit values. So it's gibberish for
>> 32-bit software.
>>
>>    I don't understand what "-run -running -convert" means
>> but maybe I answered the question?
>
> Thank you, Newyana.
> Sorry for the confusion.  I copy / pasted my Google question and included the boolean minuses so that Google would not return anything related to run, running, and convert.  It still works even though Google says that boolean term no longer works.  It still works with Ducky.

SysWOW (Windows On Windows), handles the multilib aspect
of Windows.

The OS might pretend to be native 64-bit and run on 64-bit hardware.

However, a user might want to run a 32-bit executable. There might
be some DLLs suitable for this, stored somewhere. For example, you
might catch yourself installing Visual Studio files, both an x86
file and an x64 file, to add "runtime support" for some software
you got/bought. Microsoft offers two files for download, and you
install both if expecting 32 bit and 64 bit applications to use
the runtimes.

What's missing on Windows 11 (a 64-bit only OS), is there is a
WOW for 32 bit but no WOW for 16 bit programs. It is technically
possible to do it, but it's not practical for the 7000 developers
to do it.

On Win10 (and Win8, Win7, Vista)

x64 OS = run 64bit and 32bit programs

x86 OS = run 32bit and 16bit programs

The compatibility analysis, and telemetry, helps the staff
keep all that crap tipped upright.

Reading data from storage, is in units of bytes.

Memory DIMMs have byte select strobes, so
it is technically possible to do "fractional writes"
and update 3 bytes in an 8 byte row on the DIMM.

But typically, a CPU transfers a lot of cache lines,
and for those, all eight chip selects are engaged on
each transfer.

Via write combining, the CPU interface "near the DIMM",
can combine a 3 byte write and a 1 byte write and make
a 4 byte write of it. Which still does not materially
change how it works.

We no longer really know how this stuff works, as the
data sheets "no longer require this level of detail".
Trust us. Or something. Think of what fun it must be
for a university professor to teach this stuff. And wait until
(soon) they remove all the legacy support and start over.
They've been threatening to do that. Maybe some day,
you might not need to know what "A20" is all about :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A20_line

Paul

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 18:47:55 -0400, Paul wrote:
> Does using double quotes
>
> smurf "father"
>
> still work, to make "father" a mandatory term ?

As far as I know, quotes never meant "mandatory". Quotes were just a
way of using ab phrase search instead of only single words. But I'll
take correction on that if I'm wrong.

In any case, the + sign, which used to indicate a mandatory term, no
longer does. Quite often, when I use it, and then manually search in
the first few Google results for the mandatory term, it's not there.
That's been true for at least a couple of years. I don't know whether
+ is completely meaningless now, or it just means something
difference from "mandatory". Knowing Google, I suspect the latter.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:10:11 -0400, Paul wrote:
> On Win10 (and Win8, Win7, Vista)
>
> x64 OS = run 64bit and 32bit programs
>
> x86 OS = run 32bit and 16bit programs
>
> The compatibility analysis, and telemetry, helps the staff
> keep all that crap tipped upright.
>

_Is_ there 32-bit Windows 10? I thought a 64-bit CPU was a
requirement for Win 10. Butaccording to
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-system-
requirements-6d4e9a79-66bf-7950-467c-795cf0386715> I'm wrong, and 32-
bit Win 10 will run with 1 GB RAM and 16GB disk.

Well, FSVO "run"; I suspect "crawl" would be a better choice of
words.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
>
> Google Duck does not know.
>
> How about 8 bit?

Thanks, Everyone.

Stan Brown wrote:

> I don't know whether + is completely meaningless now, or it just means
> something difference from "mandatory".

It's quite annoying, it shows the +word in struckout font, so it knows
you meant it to be mandatory, but it's admitting it doesn't exist yet
it's included the result anyway, e.g.

<https://google.com/search?q=%2Bspecial+ugigiugi>

Paul wrote:

> On Win10 (and Win8, Win7, Vista)
>
> x64 OS = run 64bit and 32bit programs
> x86 OS = run 32bit and 16bit programs

To run 16bit code under a 64bit OS you can use emulation such as DOSbox

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote

|
| As far as I know, quotes never meant "mandatory". Quotes were just a
| way of using ab phrase search instead of only single words. But I'll
| take correction on that if I'm wrong.
| With DDG, if you look for apple orange snicketty it may
come back saying, "Not many results contain snicketty.
Is that really important?" If you then tell DDG that yes, you
want to search for what you said you wanted to search
for, it will put snicketty in quotes anr run again.

But I no longer see any effect from a minus sign. Which is
unfortunate. It's so often useful.

On 24/09/2023 17:36, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote
>
> | Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
> |
> | Google Duck does not know.
> |
> | How about 8 bit?
>
> Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
> is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
> A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
> context and/or file format determine how you read it.
>

It's worth noting that a lot of old programs have 16-bit installers even
though the programs themselves are 32-bit - so would run on a 64-bit
system but you can't install them by conventional means.

You can sometimes get round that by copying the .exe and .dll files from
a working 32-bit system, and then patching the registry entries.
--
Cheers,
Roger

On 25/09/2023 17:34, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 24/09/2023 17:36, Newyana2 wrote:
>> "Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote
>>
>> | Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
>> |
>> | Google Duck does not know.
>> |
>> | How about 8 bit?
>>
>>     Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
>> is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
>> A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
>> context and/or file format determine how you read it.
>>
>
> It's worth noting that a lot of old programs have 16-bit installers even
> though the programs themselves are 32-bit - so would run on a 64-bit
> system but you can't install them by conventional means.
>
> You can sometimes get round that by copying the .exe and .dll files from
> a working 32-bit system, and then patching the registry entries.

If anyone reading this thread is interested in running 16 bit programs
on a modern PC search for Otvdm which uses Wine. It lets me run a couple
of ancient favourites (I think from Win 3.1 days) seamlessly on 64 bit
Windows 11.

MikeS wrote:
> On 25/09/2023 17:34, Roger Mills wrote:
>> On 24/09/2023 17:36, Newyana2 wrote:
>>> "Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote
>>>
>>> | Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
>>> |
>>> | Google Duck does not know.
>>> |
>>> | How about 8 bit?
>>>
>>>     Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
>>> is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
>>> A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
>>> context and/or file format determine how you read it.
>>>
>>
>> It's worth noting that a lot of old programs have 16-bit installers
>> even though the programs themselves are 32-bit - so would run on a
>> 64-bit system but you can't install them by conventional means.
>>
>> You can sometimes get round that by copying the .exe and .dll files
>> from a working 32-bit system, and then patching the registry entries.
>
> If anyone reading this thread is interested in running 16 bit programs
> on a modern PC search for Otvdm which uses Wine. It lets me run a couple
> of ancient favourites (I think from Win 3.1 days) seamlessly on 64 bit
> Windows 11.

How interesting! Thank you.
I will check it out and let the group know if it works.

On 25/09/2023 23:59, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
> MikeS wrote:
>> On 25/09/2023 17:34, Roger Mills wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2023 17:36, Newyana2 wrote:
>>>> "Paul in Houston TX" <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote
>>>>
>>>> | Can windows 64 "read" 16 bit data? -run -running -convert
>>>> |
>>>> | Google Duck does not know.
>>>> |
>>>> | How about 8 bit?
>>>>
>>>>     Win64 can't run 16-bit executables. Reading data
>>>> is not limited. For example, a PNG file is 32-bit data.
>>>> A B/W BMP file is one-bit data. Data is data. The
>>>> context and/or file format determine how you read it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's worth noting that a lot of old programs have 16-bit installers
>>> even though the programs themselves are 32-bit - so would run on a
>>> 64-bit system but you can't install them by conventional means.
>>>
>>> You can sometimes get round that by copying the .exe and .dll files
>>> from a working 32-bit system, and then patching the registry entries.
>>
>> If anyone reading this thread is interested in running 16 bit programs
>> on a modern PC search for Otvdm which uses Wine. It lets me run a
>> couple of ancient favourites (I think from Win 3.1 days) seamlessly on
>> 64 bit Windows 11.
>
> How interesting!  Thank you.
> I will check it out and let the group know if it works.
>
It does:
https://ibb.co/51PcsWc