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 However, some companies simply didn't mention their programs were still 16 bit Win 3.1 apps to avoid seeming to be outdated.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?

Winmem32 was released in 1990, win32s in 1992. Watcom C|C++ made a Windows 3.3 extender WIN386 in 1991 or 1992. For winmem32, all Microsoft had at the time was an example assembly "thunk" program for using one function provided by winmem32. SCO Xenix 386 was released in 1987. For Microsoft, 386 flat mode support would have to wait until 1992 for OS/2 or NT (which wasn't released until 1993). Winmem32.dll at least provided a 32 bit flat model, although it was awkward to implement, as it needed to switch into 16 bit "thunks" for Window API access. Rcgldr (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2025 (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)

Some examples of winmem32 based programs at the time are Mathematica 2.0, Omnipage Professional 1.0, ... . Rcgldr (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2025 (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)

Update - the issue was timing. Using the 16 bit "thunk" provided access to Windows API, while winmem32 allowed for 386 flat model. There wouldn't be a 32 version of OS/2 or Windows NT until 1992|1993. Watcom created yet another memory model, a 32 bit flat address space extender for Windows 3.1 1991|1992 which made it popular for 1 or 2 years. Rcgldr (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2025 (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)