Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 16:06.
Well Vista dropped dos and win16 compat. win3.0 + 95 didnt have "dos compatability" they ran/required dos. XP did have a compat layer. two very different things.
I think your kinda looking at things wrong.
There is win16 (windows 3.x), win32 and win64. Vista doesnt have win xp + win95 compatability. It has win32 compatability (if its a win64 os) or it _is_ win32 (nt4/2k/xp/vista 32bit editions).
the 10,000 foot view would be "win16/win32/win64"
saying powerpc compat is not like saying "can run system6 executable" which is what you are saying with "dos compat".
you also missed a box underneath doscompat "cpm/86 compatability"
Oliver Steele lives in Western Massachusetts and commutes to downtown LA, where he is bringing an operating system from handwaving to reality. He was the architect of OpenLaszlo, the author of PyWordNet and other open source projects. His interests include programming languages, knowledge representation, information visualization, and math education. [more]
Well Vista dropped dos and win16 compat. win3.0 + 95 didnt have "dos compatability" they ran/required dos. XP did have a compat layer. two very different things.
I think your kinda looking at things wrong.
There is win16 (windows 3.x), win32 and win64. Vista doesnt have win xp + win95 compatability. It has win32 compatability (if its a win64 os) or it _is_ win32 (nt4/2k/xp/vista 32bit editions).
the 10,000 foot view would be "win16/win32/win64"
saying powerpc compat is not like saying "can run system6 executable" which is what you are saying with "dos compat".
you also missed a box underneath doscompat "cpm/86 compatability"