OT: Win16? Just asking...

[Harry Potter]

Does *anybody* use Win16 anymore? Just wondering....

[Auric__]

Harry Potter wrote:

> Does *anybody* use Win16 anymore? Just wondering....

In emulation, yes, but *very* infrequently.

I received a user request a few years back to port one of my Win32 apps to
Win16, but was ultimately unable to, largely due to a combination of not
being able to find 16-bit APIs that provided required functionality, and a
complete lack of interest in writing my own functions to do what was needed
in order to satisfy *ONE USER*.

--
This is the slave killin' soooooooooong too bad it has no tuuuuuuuune.

[JJ]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Harry Potter wrote:
> Does *anybody* use Win16 anymore? Just wondering....

Just for runing old Win3.x programs, not for making one. There's just no
more benefit on making a Win16 program when run under 32-bit Windows.

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <93510458-9a08-4bd2...@googlegroups.com>,

rose.j...@yahoo.com (Harry Potter) writes:

> Does *anybody* use Win16 anymore? Just wondering....

I still build Win16 versions of my stuff where possible, but only
because I never bothered removing any 16-bit code (conditioned by
#ifdef WIN16) or my makefiles. I haven't tried running one of them
for years, though...

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[Harry Potter]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:29:23 PM UTC-4, JJ wrote:
> Just for runing old Win3.x programs, not for making one. There's just no more benefit on making a Win16 program when run under 32-bit Windows.

Thank you. That's all I needed. :(