I like how Windows managed the 32bit/64bit migration in the most sensible way, by making us pick from two copies of every installer/binary forever
-
I like how Windows managed the 32bit/64bit migration in the most sensible way, by making us pick from two copies of every installer/binary forever
I know programmers who use fat binaries and they're all cowards
-
I know programmers who use fat binaries and they're all cowards
@foone that's what Mac programs do now. They just package amd64 and armv8 together.
-
I like how Windows managed the 32bit/64bit migration in the most sensible way, by making us pick from two copies of every installer/binary forever
@foone and then having people name them x86 and x64 for clarity
-
I like how Windows managed the 32bit/64bit migration in the most sensible way, by making us pick from two copies of every installer/binary forever
@foone thanks to arm64 its now three 🤪
-
I like how Windows managed the 32bit/64bit migration in the most sensible way, by making us pick from two copies of every installer/binary forever
@foone fat binaries? that sounds too complicated -
@foone that's what Mac programs do now. They just package amd64 and armv8 together.
@benjistokman yeah! because their OS was designed by non-maniacs!
-
I know programmers who use fat binaries and they're all cowards
technically windows does use fat binaries, they're just DOS/windows.
which is really only ever used to display a "you need windows to run this program" if you accidentally run it in DOS.
-
technically windows does use fat binaries, they're just DOS/windows.
which is really only ever used to display a "you need windows to run this program" if you accidentally run it in DOS.
I wonder if it still does that for 64bit EXEs?
-
technically windows does use fat binaries, they're just DOS/windows.
which is really only ever used to display a "you need windows to run this program" if you accidentally run it in DOS.
@foone But you *can* use that for so much more....
-
I like how Windows managed the 32bit/64bit migration in the most sensible way, by making us pick from two copies of every installer/binary forever
@foone don’t forget the software that also has arm64 binaries!
-
64bit windows EXE, being run in DOSBox-X:
-
technically windows does use fat binaries, they're just DOS/windows.
which is really only ever used to display a "you need windows to run this program" if you accidentally run it in DOS.
@foone surely NTFS binaries are more common these days
-
64bit windows EXE, being run in DOSBox-X:
fun fact: although that DOS stub usually just says that and quits, there's nothing that stops it from doing other things.
You could write a program that runs on DOS and win64, it'd just need to be implemented twice and embedded in the same binary
-
technically windows does use fat binaries, they're just DOS/windows.
which is really only ever used to display a "you need windows to run this program" if you accidentally run it in DOS.
@foone I feel like I remember certain Win 3.x binaries also prepending a DOS executable of the same program, so that the same binary runs on both systems.
But Win 3.x isn't PE. So maybe I'm misremembering.
-
fun fact: although that DOS stub usually just says that and quits, there's nothing that stops it from doing other things.
You could write a program that runs on DOS and win64, it'd just need to be implemented twice and embedded in the same binary
so you could fat-binary a program to run on DOS/win32/win64 this way, by making it a 32bit program which win64 can run though backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure if you can include win16 though: it won't run the DOS stub, and it'll not be able to run the win32 version.
Unless you can set up win32s on win16 in such a way that it works in both 16bit windowses (through win32s) and 32bit-native windowses
-
I wonder if it still does that for 64bit EXEs?
@foone@digipres.club it's even still a thing in arm64 exes (iirc with an x86 dos stub) and bootmgfw.efi, even though no reasonable person will ever try to run those on dos
-
@foone But you *can* use that for so much more....
-
@gsuberland @dalias nasty
-
so you could fat-binary a program to run on DOS/win32/win64 this way, by making it a 32bit program which win64 can run though backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure if you can include win16 though: it won't run the DOS stub, and it'll not be able to run the win32 version.
Unless you can set up win32s on win16 in such a way that it works in both 16bit windowses (through win32s) and 32bit-native windowses
RE: https://digipres.club/@foone/116195447625031209
@foone Does ARM somehow also fit in?
-
so you could fat-binary a program to run on DOS/win32/win64 this way, by making it a 32bit program which win64 can run though backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure if you can include win16 though: it won't run the DOS stub, and it'll not be able to run the win32 version.
Unless you can set up win32s on win16 in such a way that it works in both 16bit windowses (through win32s) and 32bit-native windowses
@foone but fat as it is tall and with tits to match or are we being cowards?
