notsofossil wrote:What are some examples of Win95 games that can work on Win3.11 using Win32s?
That's a though question. I would say it is best to go by release and production dates,
since the insane Windows 95 hype of the 90s caused Win 3.1 compatibility to be neglected.
Not on the technical side, but on the games package.
Back then, gigantic star-formed stickers in ugly signal colours proudly screamed "Works with Windows 95!",
"Windows 95 supported", "Windows 95 enhanced", "Now for Windows 95", "Windows 95 blah.. blah.. blah.." 😉
Windows 3.1 or NT was mentioned on the specs part, if at all. Usually on the underside or lower corner of the backside.
While it was still the most common Windows release, people of the time seemingly wanted erase 3.1 from their minds.
Maybe they did like the colour blue ? 😁
Win32 games released between 92-95 have a chance to run on Win32s, too.
The main problem is that every Win32s application is a valid Win32 application as well.
In some way or another, a Win32s application is even more conformable to the Win NT API, tha the average Win95 binary.
That's because Win32s sttarted out as a subset of Win32 (NT), not Win32c (Win95).
In addition, a Win32s EXE also contains relocation tables. They are handy for certain special cases and don't get in the way with Win95/NT.
On these platforms, they are simply ignored. However, they are handy for modern NT releases,
because the ability of self-relocation works hand-in-hand with modern mechanisms like NX-Bit/PAE/DEP.
Some random characteristics of a Win32s application:
- Relocation tables
- 16MB limit
- Not using Threading
- Not using modern GDI brushes
- 8+3 file names
- Using only Win 3.1/core NT Common Dialogs
- Not using DirectX
KCompRoom2000 wrote:
Windows NT 3.51 is another good choice you can look into, it has the Windows 3.x UI and is compatible with more software thanks to being a native 32-bit operating system..
NT 3.51 was a good OS, no question. Not as elegant and advanced as OS/2 Warp, of course, but good. 😉
Interestingly, there once was a Windows for Workgroups 3.11 vs Windows NT 3.x article (or author's comment).
Surprisingly, as it turned out, WfW 3.11 with enabled FastDisk and disk cache was higher (!) performing than NT.
Same did go for video speed. Windows 3.11 was much quicker here.
I once discoverd that amusing article in the huge shelves with archived issues of "Byte Magazine",
when I was in my city's public library and was searching for retro/vintage computing/vintage radio articles.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//