johnyept wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:33:

I'm more inclined to use Windows 7 x64 since I'll have XP Pro x86 to fallback on

Given you have XP x32 for 16-bit I feel W7 x64 is the sensible choice.

I would install XP first on D: then W7 on C: as it's quite hard to get W7 to install on other than C:

johnyept wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:33:

but allow processes to use more than 2GB RAM.

For x32 executables to be able to use > 2GB then they need to be licked with /largeaddressaware and as most are not they will still be limited to 2GB on x64 Windows.

The x86 version will give me some 16-bit compatibility

Core 2 Duo can run DOSBOX just fine. And you'll cut yourself off from some modern utilities which do not have 32-bit variants or were dropped long time ago.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:50:

The x86 version will give me some 16-bit compatibility

Core 2 Duo can run DOSBOX just fine. And you'll cut yourself off from some modern utilities which do not have 32-bit variants or were dropped long time ago.

I feel XP32 can handle the 16bit utilities quite well here with X64 Win7 picking up everything else XP32 cant, seems like a nice setup. Having Win7 with DOSBox makes this an even better retro box, being a Quad Core CD2 they could also run a VM within Win7 with Win98se on it, should handle 16bit software even in a VM IIRC.

red-ray wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:47:

I would install XP first on D: then W7 on C: as it's quite hard to get W7 to install on other than C:

No need, all my dual boot systems use C: for both OSes and D: for personal files/games. In this case, Windows XP install \WINDOWS, \Program Files and \Documents and Settings inside C:\WINXP. My RETRO-W95 dual boots Windows 95 (pt-PT) and NT4 (pt-BR) without modifications because they already use different folders, and RETRO-W98 installs Windows 2000 inside C:\WIN2K, so everything is nice and tidy 😉

red-ray wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:47:

For x32 executables to be able to use > 2GB then they need to be licked with /largeaddressaware and as most are not they will still be limited to 2GB on x64 Windows.

Interesting to know.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:50:

Core 2 Duo can run DOSBOX just fine. And you'll cut yourself off from some modern utilities which do not have 32-bit variants or were dropped long time ago.

TrashPanda wrote on 2023-01-27, 15:37:

I feel XP32 can handle the 16bit utilities quite well here with X64 Win7 picking up everything else XP32 cant, seems like a nice setup. Having Win7 with DOSBox makes this an even better retro box, being a Quad Core CD2 they could also run a VM within Win7 with Win98se on it, should handle 16bit software even in a VM IIRC.

I probably won't need DOSBOX since I already have 9x retro machines for DOS/9x games, this will be only for XP/7 era games. Older 16-bit utilities can always be run in Windows XP, so I'm guessing Windows 7 x64 seems to be the best bet overall.

Dual boot Win7 x64 with WinXP.

If you want to use 32bit windows, you could install this patch to use all your ram: https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2019 … -ram-patch.html

But you are probably better off sticking with the 64bit version unless there's some software or driver compatibility issue that forces you down the 32bit path.

There probably a small performance hit with the 64bit version, depending on what you are doing, but I'll assume you won't worry about the performance side too much, because if you were worried about performance, you wouldn't be building a computer from cast off parts, would you?

johnyept wrote on 2023-01-27, 14:33:

The x86 version will give me some 16-bit compatibility but limit processes to 2GB RAM, while x64 will cut off 16-bit compatibility but allow processes to use more than 2GB RAM.
I'm more inclined to use Windows 7 x64 since I'll have XP Pro x86 to fallback on, but I'm open to opinions/suggestions.

Hi! ^^

You can run WineVDM/OTVDM on Windows x64 by now. It works for simple things, like installers, at least.
Things/games using WinG, DCI or require QuickTime may not fully work yet, not sure.

The Win16 support in Windows of the Windows NT line is provided by a minimalistic copy of Windows 3.1x.
It's being run by Windows on Windows (WoW) on top of NTVDM. The latter is a bit feature-reduced since Vista (VGA support, EMS).

Windows Vista/7 also fixes certain graphical glitches with Win16 applications -which sometimes happen on NT/2k/XP-, if Aero Glass is enabled.
Especially, if the application tries to use 256c modes/palettes. So certain Windows 3.11 programs that glitch out on XP may work on Vista/7 again.
If the WDDM 1.x drivers are used (not XP drivers; XPDMs). That has to do with how the graphics rendering is altered if the GPU is doing the job of drawing the screen.

In Vista, the Desktop Compositing Engine stuffes certain GDI operations into a buffer, for example (afaik).
This had a negative effect on 2D performance for classic applications under certain circumstances.
Windows 7 fixed this by allowing GDI acceleration (using WDDM 1.1 drivers).

See 2D, Acceleration, And Windows: Aren't All Graphics Cards Equal?
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windo … s-gdi,2539.html

Anyway, I think that true Windows 3.11 for Workgroups is still a better overall experience for 16-Bit Windows applications.
So you can use 16-Bit QuickTime, for example, to play games like Myst without much trouble.
Newer 16-Bit Windows programs may also need Windows 95, even, to fully work.

At its heart, the updated GDI in Windows 95 is still 16-Bit and some late Windows 3.1x programs use functions of it not available in 3.1x.
Those programs may not work correctly on the Windows 3.1x emulation in Windows NT.

Edit: Link fixed.

Edit: At 4GB RAM, x64 vs x86 doesn't really matter. While the X64 edition can use the extra 512MB, it's also fatter, so the there's not much gain.
If the machine had 6 or 8 GB of RAM, I'd vote for x64. But with merely 4GB, the 32-Bit edition is fine, too.
Especially for retro games from the early-mid 2000s.

If you're dual booting Windows 7 with (presumably 32-bit) Windows XP, then you don't really need a 32-bit version of Windows 7, because whatever has problems with 64-bit Windows 7 should run fine on XP.

On the other hand, a 64-bit OS is the one that can utilize the full potential of your CPU, not crippling it with 32-bit only mode 😉

(I run 64-bit Windows 10 on my Core 2 Quad Q9550, but the mainboard is happy with 8 GB of RAM)

Azarien wrote on 2023-01-27, 20:40:

On the other hand, a 64-bit OS is the one that can utilize the full potential of your CPU, not crippling it with 32-bit only mode 😉

Normally, yes, though there are exceptions. A virtualization software can run a 64-Bit guest on a 32-Bit host by using hardware-assisted virtualization, for example.
Also, there's a difference between Intel's vs AMD's version of x64. That could be a problem maybe, not sure. AMD CPUs use the original x64, but the OP uses an Intel Core2Duo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differen … 64_and_Intel_64

Another thing that comes to mind is x87 support. The FPU is considered a legacy instruction, as far as x64 is considered.
Maybe there are performance issues etc. in x64 mode, not sure. Anyway, it's not as if it's broken or something (yet).
https://www.virtualdub.org/blog2/entry_107.html

"Intel started discouraging the use of x87 with the introduction of the P4 in late 2000.
AMD deprecated x87 since the K8 in 2003, as x86-64 is defined with SSE2 support; VIA’s C7 has supported SSE2 since 2005.
In 64-bit versions of Windows, x87 is deprecated for user-mode, and prohibited entirely in kernel-mode.
Pretty much everyone in the industry has recommended SSE over x87 since 2005
and there are no reasons to use x87, unless software has to run on an embedded Pentium or 486."

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/nvidia-de-optim … pu/?tag=nl.e539

Edit: Anyway, I don't mean to be nitpicking here. 😅 It just came to mind.
The x87 thing is something I still remembered from the late 2000s. ^^

Jo22 wrote on 2023-01-27, 21:06:

Normally, yes, though there are exceptions. A virtualization software can run a 64-Bit guest on a 32-Bit host by using hardware- […]
Show full quote

Azarien wrote on 2023-01-27, 20:40:

On the other hand, a 64-bit OS is the one that can utilize the full potential of your CPU, not crippling it with 32-bit only mode 😉

Normally, yes, though there are exceptions. A virtualization software can run a 64-Bit guest on a 32-Bit host by using hardware-assisted virtualization, for example.
Also, there's a difference between Intel's vs AMD's version of x64. That could be a problem maybe, not sure. AMD CPUs use the original x64, but the OP uses an Intel Core2Duo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differen … 64_and_Intel_64

Another thing that comes to mind is x87 support. The FPU is considered a legacy instruction, as far as x64 is considered.
Maybe there are performance issues etc. in x64 mode, not sure. Anyway, it's not as if it's broken or something (yet).
https://www.virtualdub.org/blog2/entry_107.html

"Intel started discouraging the use of x87 with the introduction of the P4 in late 2000.
AMD deprecated x87 since the K8 in 2003, as x86-64 is defined with SSE2 support; VIA’s C7 has supported SSE2 since 2005.
In 64-bit versions of Windows, x87 is deprecated for user-mode, and prohibited entirely in kernel-mode.
Pretty much everyone in the industry has recommended SSE over x87 since 2005
and there are no reasons to use x87, unless software has to run on an embedded Pentium or 486."

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/nvidia-de-optim … pu/?tag=nl.e539

Edit: Anyway, I don't mean to be nitpicking here. 😅 It just came to mind.
The x87 thing is something I still remembered from the late 2000s. ^^

By the time of CD2 Intel was using a licensed version of AMDx64, even the P4 used the AMD version IIRC only Itanium used Intel's dedicated version. There are minor differences between the two implementations but none of them are relevant to normal use as all x64 programs are compiled to be compatible with AMD and Intel. (There is the NX bit issue but that doesn't affect Core2 and is only relevant to Win8 and above)