Talk:Win32s

Neutrality
Having developed in it, I can say that Win32s was pretty lame. But still, this article seems to be unduely harsh, with several particularly strong (and uncited) accusations. It did help ease the transition to 32-bit Windows, and it let me develop apps at the time for my Win 3.x clients using Windows NT 3.51. Thalter 16:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I used it for a year or two (can't really remember why at this point), and it didn't cause big problems. AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Programs for Windows 3.1 and Windows 95
Many programs that were advertised as, or had on their boxes, compatible with Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, used Win32s. Some also used WinG on 3.1x. Some claiming compatibility with both were 16 bit programs tested with 95, then "Windows 95 compatible" was added to the promotional material without any changes to the software. One could be fairly certain 1995 and later Windows software that *didn't* claim 3.1 compatibility was 32bit, using the Windows 95 API. However, some companies simply didn't mention their programs were still 16 bit Win 3.1 apps to avoid seeming to be outdated. Bizzybody (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt that ou have any references for that... mabdul 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most software that claimed Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 compatibility were 16-bit, since Windows 95 was backwards compatible. I've seen programs that came with separate 16- and 32-bit executables, and a small number of programs that were actually written for Win32s. Having not done an exhaustive survey, this is only my opinion. DOSGuy (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

MIT copy
MIT copy is apparently damaged. Someone should report to them, and provide them with a copy that's not damaged (maybe taken from Pilot Bros CD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yura87 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

winmem32 - should it be included here or created as a separate article?
Unlike win23s which was installed separately, winmem32 was included with Window 3.11, and it also provided a 32 bit flat address space (for systems with 80386 or later processors). However, only Watcom C/C++ 10.0 fully supported winmem32 as one of it's standard memory models with a 32 bit flat address space, hiding all of the 16/32 bit interface stuff from the programmer. All Microsoft had at the time was an example assembly "thunk" program for using one function provided by winmem32. This resulted in the Watcom C/C++ 10.0 compiler being relatively popular until Windows 95 was released and became the mainstream Windows OS. Rcgldr (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I look at it from the perspective of purpose. If both programs have a similar purpose, include it in the same article. The purpose of Win32s is to allow software written for 32-bit versions of Windows to run on Windows 3.1x. It sounds like winmem32 was designed to allow software written for Windows 3.11 to use 32-bit Protected Mode to use flat addressing and have access to the full 4 GB of RAM that a 386+ can address. One is to create forwards-compatibility with software written for a different API, and one is just to permit 32-bit memory addressing. If I understand correctly, the purpose of winmem32 is totally different from the purpose of Win32s and, thus, doesn't belong in an article about Win32s. DOSGuy (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Win32s only supported some 32 bit Windows programs, it wasn't fully compatible, and at the time it was popular, not all Windows 95 programs could run under Win32s. If I recall correctly, I think the original goal was to get some Windows NT 3.5.1 programs to run with Win32s (since it predated Windows 95). Typically programs that could run with Win32s included a Win32s install option, since it wasn't included with Windows 3.11. Winmem32 was included, and programs that were Winmem32 compatible didn't require any additional installs other than the program itself. Again, this is what made the Watcom C/C++ 10 compiler so popular during that window of time between Windows 3.11 and Windows 95. Some examples of Winmem32 compatible programs at the time are Mathematica 2.0, Omnipage Professional 1.0, ... . Rcgldr (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But, again, do they have the same purpose? One is for making better Win 3.1x programs, and the other is to allow Win NT/95 programs run on Win 3.1x. Unless I'm misunderstanding, there seems to be no reason to mention a winmem32 in an article about Win32s. DOSGuy (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, winmem32 should probably be a separate article, but finding sources for it could be difficult, which would be an issue for creating a Wiki article about it. Win32S was released before Windows 95, so it used a subset of NT 3.5.1 API as noted in the article. Office 95 could run on win32s, but I wonder if different modules were chosen during install due to differences between win32s, NT 3.5.1 and Win 95. Rcgldr (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

KernelEx
Perhaps mention KernelEx, a similar extension. From their website: "KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow running Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft Windows Millennium operating systems"

Topher67 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)