On 10.01.2015 21:27, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Bring back 32-bit Windows versions for 64-bit WINEPREFIXES
Having a 64-bit WINEPREFIX shouldn't exclude you from selecting 32-bit versions of Windows.
Yes, it should. There's no such thing as 64 bit win2k or winme.
On 11/01/15 11:16, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 10.01.2015 21:27, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Bring back 32-bit Windows versions for 64-bit WINEPREFIXES
Having a 64-bit WINEPREFIX shouldn't exclude you from selecting 32-bit versions of Windows.
Yes, it should. There's no such thing as 64 bit win2k or winme.
And there's no such thing as 32-bit in Windows 2.0. I shouldn't have to create separate WINEPREFIXES just so I can choose between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows versions for my applications. How is this going to be handled for ARM? Isn't 400 MB for a single WINEPREFIX enough?
Wine already handles 32-/64-bit, there's no need to deny users access to Windows 2000 just because they've installed Wine using the default settings on the 64-bit machines.
On 11.01.2015 14:31, Ken Sharp wrote:
On 11/01/15 11:16, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 10.01.2015 21:27, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Bring back 32-bit Windows versions for 64-bit WINEPREFIXES
Having a 64-bit WINEPREFIX shouldn't exclude you from selecting 32-bit versions of Windows.
Yes, it should. There's no such thing as 64 bit win2k or winme.
And there's no such thing as 32-bit in Windows 2.0. I shouldn't have to create separate WINEPREFIXES just so I can choose between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows versions for my applications.
Yes, you should. Same way as you have to choose Windows 7 arch you want to install. You have to understand that using 64 bit prefix is not only about filtering Windows version combobox.
How is this going to be handled for ARM?
What's so different about it?
Isn't 400 MB for a single WINEPREFIX enough?
It needs what it needs. If you want to run 1 MB application you could see it as a huge number, if you install any relatively modern game - it's nothing.
Wine already handles 32-/64-bit, there's no need to deny users access to Windows 2000 just because they've installed Wine using the default settings on the 64-bit machines.
There's no such thing as Windows 2000 64 bits, applications should not be forced to run in environment that can't be possibly tested on real Windows.
On Jan 12, 2015 12:56 AM, "Ken Sharp" imwellcushtymelike@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/01/15 11:16, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 10.01.2015 21:27, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Bring back 32-bit Windows versions for 64-bit WINEPREFIXES
Having a 64-bit WINEPREFIX shouldn't exclude you from selecting 32-bit versions of Windows.
Yes, it should. There's no such thing as 64 bit win2k or winme.
And there's no such thing as 32-bit in Windows 2.0.
That would be 16 bit, but wine doesn't have a concept of 16 bit prefixes (and arguably doesn't need to).
I shouldn't have to create separate WINEPREFIXES just so I can choose
between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows versions for my applications.
Yes, you should. Each WINEPREFIX is an isolated environment. Just as you shouldn't expect a 64 bit application to work on 32 bit Windows.
How is this going to be handled for ARM? Isn't 400 MB for a single
WINEPREFIX enough?
I don't see how thIs matters or is relevant. Please clarify.
Wine already handles 32-/64-bit, there's no need to deny users access to
Windows 2000 just because they've installed Wine using the default settings on the 64-bit machines.
Again, yes there is. Win2k doesn't support 64 bit. It's a nonexistent platform, and allowing it would likely introduce unknown behavior in some applications.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 2015-01-12 um 08:15 schrieb Austin English:
Wine already handles 32-/64-bit, there's no need to deny users access to Windows 2000 just because they've installed Wine using the default settings on the 64-bit machines.
Again, yes there is. Win2k doesn't support 64 bit. It's a nonexistent platform, and allowing it would likely introduce unknown behavior in some applications.
What does a 64 bit Windows do when you tell it to run foo.exe in Win98 compatibility mode?
- From a user point of view I agree with Ken. I have plenty of old games that refuse to run on anything but Win98 only because of a broken version check (e.g. Need for Speed 2, 3). They run just fine in a 64 bit Wineprefix after I've used the 32 bit winecfg build to set winver=win98 via appdefault.
Otoh we can keep the "user 32 bit winecfg" solution as it is as a "use this at your own risk" fix.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:42:46 +0100 Stefan Dösinger stefandoesinger@gmail.com wrote:
- From a user point of view I agree with Ken. I have plenty of old games
that refuse to run on anything but Win98 only because of a broken version check (e.g. Need for Speed 2, 3). They run just fine in a 64 bit Wineprefix after I've used the 32 bit winecfg build to set winver=win98 via appdefault.
Otoh we can keep the "user 32 bit winecfg" solution as it is as a "use this at your own risk" fix.
I'm not totally against having "use at your own risk" settings be made accessible in winecfg, but if winecfg were to be changed back, those settings should come with an appropriate warning to the user, similar to the warning that pops up when a user tries to override a dll that is not recommended to be overridden. Without such a warning, users will expect the configuration to be supported. Do the developers really want to fix bugs caused by setting a 64 bit wineprefix to Windows 2.0?
The current setup is not causing any problems for users that I have seen.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net wrote:
Do the developers really want to fix bugs caused by setting a 64 bit wineprefix to Windows 2.0?
No, but the prefix arch isn't my primary concern about this scenario.
I do not care about any bug caused by setting the Windows version to something earlier than the default when it isn't necessary. The distinction between "This doesn't work because you set your prefix to a Windows version that doesn't exist." and "This doesn't work because you set your prefix to a Windows version that no one uses anymore." isn't important to me.
If you're setting the Windows version globally to something very old, you should absolutely create a new prefix for it, even if your Wine build is 32-bit, because it will break anything modern you try to run. If you set it for a single .exe, that's probably comparable to windows' "compatibility mode" as described by Stefan, and the damage should be limited to a single app anyway.
I would be in favor of adding old versions back to winecfg at least when filtered to a specific .exe file, with no warnings around it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 2015-01-13 um 03:06 schrieb Vincent Povirk:
I would be in favor of adding old versions back to winecfg at least when filtered to a specific .exe file, with no warnings around it.
I like this idea.
-
Austin English -
Ken Sharp -
Nikolay Sivov -
Rosanne DiMesio -
Stefan Dösinger -
Vincent Povirk