Re: Why Still Win32?

From	rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject	Re: Why Still Win32?
Date	2026-05-12 23:14 +0000
Message-ID	<n6hqi5F2nluU7@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<10trapk$pec6$2@dont-email.me> <10tua7i$1m3du$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 12 May 2026 12:27:27 +0800, makendo wrote:

> The name simply stuck. There are too many software for Windows by then,
> and you clearly don't want to make things harder to port with a vastly
> changed API "for the 64-bit age". Given the conservativeness of
> Microsoft on technical decisions back then (they even went for 32-bit
> longs on 64-bit platforms at the C ABI level), they probably won't even
> consider the notion of just renaming the Win32 API to Win64.

It takes imagination to create SysWow64 to hold the 32 bit binaries. I 
think they finally corrected it or made it more apparent but odbcad32.exe 
existed in both the 64 and 32 bit folders. If you had a 32bit DB2 
installation and used the 64 bit odbcad32.exe you'd get 64 bit drivers 
that wouldn't work. Our support people were justifiably confuse. 'No, you 
have to use the odbcad32.exe that is in the director that sounds like it 
should have the 64 bit programs. The 64 bit one are in system32.

If that's not fucked I don't know what is.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why Still Win32? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-11 01:18 +0000
  Re: Why Still Win32? makendo <makendo@makendo.invalid> - 2026-05-12 12:27 +0800
    Re: Why Still Win32? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-12 04:52 +0000
      Re: Why Still Win32? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-12 23:15 +0000
    Re: Why Still Win32? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-12 23:14 +0000

csiph-web