just tried on win 2000 (SP4).

same result, it claims that this is no valid win32 exe file...

does somebody have any idea how to solute this ?
🙁

hey guys!
nobody knows some help?
would be bad...

please, give me some advice 🙁

Didn't you check if there is a new patch for the game? some programs don't like running under xp/2000. The other workaround would be tu run the DOS version under Dosbox, a DOS emulator

Sounds like the patch doesn't make a Win32 application... That is, it becomes a Windows compatible 16 bit application, as opposed to a real mode 16 bit application.

Win9X systems (Other than Win95A) can handle 16 and 32 bit applications. WinNT systems can only reliably handle 32 bit applications, (this includes Win2000 and WinXP). So, if you have a patch to turn your real mode 16 bit prog into a windows 16 bit app, then it likely will not work in any NT environment, and this could cause the .exe to show up as a non-32 bit application.

* This is intended as more of a "why" than a fix.

NT based systems can run 16-bit applications fine; I've never seen one that wouldn't work anyway. I still play all of my old Windows 3.1 games in XP, and also I'm still using the 16-bit Windows version of Wordperfect on it.

Sounds to me like your new exe file is corrupt; this often happens when a file is not downloaded completely or with errors. If you downloaded the update, try downloading it again (from a different site if possible). You said it worked in 98 though, so perhaps it's something else. Maybe they used an odd compiler to make it or something.

Right, should've been more specific. NT based systems are not *designed* to run 16 bit applications. Sounds like you've had some good luck in doing so, Banq, I envy ya. 😁 I've had to troubleshoot a lot of systems that had no problem other than 16 bit applications not running on an NT box. 😒

Any of us who've had to deal with XP much have surely seen the big deal over XP verified software and drivers. The reason MS has made such a big deal over XP verified software is that they had a real backlash when 2000 went public, (people complained that suddenly, without warning, their old software stopped working and they had to downgrade from 2k to 98). Being that NT is not compatible with 16 bit applications, (MS says this, not me), an NT system may run anything, but then again, you're on your own for a 16bit app.

Which is what this .exe sounds like. My personal opinion is not a corrupt .exe, only because it runs just fine on the 98 machine. If an executable is truly corrupt, it won't run anywhere.

just to clarify:

the exe file is a native win95 exe.
it runs in a window.
so no, it is in no way a dos or win16 file, since it is explicitly described as win95 specific.
also there is no newer patch!

the file cannot be corrupt, since the patch didn't come as a plain zip, but a patcher.
everything worked fine.

it is compiled with watcom, which is in my eyes somewhat "odd" (i often heard watcom is sometimes buggy)...

is there some sort of exe cleaning/rebuilding tool which could help?

Techie note: Win95 Applications are normally 16bit.

Win95 had, (to my recollection) three big releases. Version A couldn't handle 32 bit applications at all. Therefore, typically when a program is Win95 compatible, it is a 16bit app. If it said Win98 compatible, then you'd more likely be looking at a 32bit app.

16bit doesn't necessarily mean DOS based.

CinciTech wrote:

Techie note: Win95 Applications are normally 16bit.
Win95 had, (to my recollection) three big releases. Version A couldn't handle 32 bit applications at all. Therefore, typically when a program is Win95 compatible, it is a 16bit app. If it said Win98 compatible, then you'd more likely be looking at a 32bit app.
16bit doesn't necessarily mean DOS based.

The above written looks like complete nonsense to me... There are 16 bit Windows applications, but these are primarily for Windows 3.x !!!
W9x windows (from W95 to WME) all run 32 bit applications (although they run Windows 3.1 applications as well). They have all the same core, if they named them Windows95 version 1.0, Windows 95 versio 1.1 etc. it would be more clear).
@CinciTech: Could you support your claims by some proofs (e.g. links to some articles on web)? It seems just nonsense to me...

BTW: you can still use W95 for some modern programs requiring officially W98 (unless they specifically check whether they are not on W95). I think that you can also install newer version of DirectX. You just *must* update before some components which can be downloaded from Microsoft (I cannot remember now what everything is necessary - I use W98SE now).

Mirek

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/osWin95-c.html

(Article gives a lil history on first release of 95A, and notes that it does not handle FAT32, or 32bit file access tables.)

http://www.avdf.com/aug96/art_odbc.html

(Atricle about threading, 32 bit applications and 16 bit applications and Win95)

Checking for other pertinent articles, maybe post a complete response when I'm not at work. These are maybe just a lil something to read thru on the subject...

***EDIT***

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/fil … tems_win95a.htm

"Windows® 95 remained compatible with older FAT 12 and FAT 16 partitions and disks The initial version of Windows® 95 is often referred to, even by Microsoft, as Windows® 95A or the Retail Version of Windows® 95 to distinguish it from later editions. This no doubt is in recognition of the fact that it was the only revision of Windows 95 officially sold to the public. It's important to remember that this version of Windows® 95 did not support the now ubiquitous FAT32 file system."

There is a further link to see the changes in Win95B&C:

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/fil … ems_win95bc.htm

"Nearly a year after the first release of Windows® 95, Microsoft issued a second version of Windows® 95, which included an updated version of its FAT 32 file system, along with a few other new features."

Furthermore, for history buffs, Win95 OSR2.0 was Win95B, which got FAT32 support, Win95 OSR2.1 was an updated version which included the brand spankin new technology USB1.1, and Win95 OSR2.5 was Win95C, which added IE 4.0, as well as a lot of Win98 functionality, if I remember right... Quicklaunch bar was born here, among other lil add-ons, I believe.

I think that you can also install newer version of DirectX. You just *must* update before some components which can be downloaded from Microsoft (I cannot remember now what everything is necessary - I use W98SE now).

I actually tried upgrading a Win95 system a few months ago... Not to a new OS, but IE and a few updates. Since MS stopped supporting Win95 a couple years ago, you can no longer do automatic updates via their website, and you can't install IE version 6.0 or above on 95, (and consequently, I haven't been able to find any version of IE that's not the latest.). I believe I found this the same for DirectX above version 6.[/quote]

You are confusing two completely different things:
- 32 bit applications (all W9x version run them)
- FAT 32 support - introduced in W95 OSR2

FAT 32 just enables to work more effectively with large disks (less wasted space - it basically enables to divide disk to smaller clusters).
Using FAt16 you can get to situation when your 1KB files takes perhaps 16 Kb on disc. FAT 32 enables finer granularity of space usage.
FAT 32 has nothing to do with 32 bit applications !!!

As for DirectX: when you try to install newer versions on W95, there are errors. One component must be updated (which can be downloaded from Microsoft). It is not supported but it should work. If you search net I am sure you find the information (I do not remember now what it is).

Edited: Ok, the last version of DirectX installable on W95 is DirectX 8.0a (I wonder whether DirectX 9 is not just crippled by a check in the installation program). The mentioned component which must be updated is DCOM (downloadabble separately, possibly also a part of IE 5.x).

Mirek

I really didn't intend to start a debate on versions of Windows that no one uses anymore, apologies to the original poster. I actuially found myself considering installing a copy of 95A on a spare drive, and thought, 'why'? One could maybe make 95 run on a P4 3gHz, install the latest DirectX, etc... But why ever would that be a justifiable waste of time?

I'm not fully convinced that 32bit applications work on the original 95, but I'm not going to load up and try it. So, I give.

As for the actual request on this thread, the poster seems to agree that it's not a corrupt file, it does work on Win98, (16/32 bit OS), but it doesn't work on WinXP (32bit only). The error message states that the file is not a valid 32 bit application. Therefore, it seems to me that it is a 16 bit application. Workarounds would be to run the file in a Windows 9x environment, or run the DOS version in DOSBox.

@CinciTech:

does that mean win2K/XP aren't compatible to 16bit applications anymore?
the interesting thing is: i managed to run old applications from windows 3.11 on XP! that included the file manager, some 3rd party apps and a reversi game which was a native win16 application...

As Banquo stated earlier, there are random success stories of 16 bit applications working on WinNT/2000/XP. I honestly don't know why one app will work while another won't, or why one app will work on your XP machine but not on someone else's. It's an intermittent annoyance, but it's best summed up by Micronopoly's view on it: 16 bit applications may work, but they're not guaranteeing any results.

So yeah, we've probably all found programs that will work on NT based systems, but my experience has been that it's so erratic that two identical computers may not run the same 16 bit app. I used to wonder if you could just wipe and reinstall a machine until it finally ran the app. If you get something that works, congrats, and if anyone knows what makes 16 bit apps work stably on NT, let MS and the rest of the world know. Otherwise, if it just won't work, that could be the whole problem.

I'm also told that we're going to see pretty much the same compatibility headaches as 64 bit processors and operating systems continue to hit mainstream... Only then it would be 32bit applications that "may work but aren't supported".

Windows XP *should* run 16 bit applications. They are compatible with Windows 3.1.The reason why some may not work is the same as with some W9x applications: the application is doing something Windows XP does not like. NT based systems like Windows NT/2000/XP are programmed to be more "safer", so things which were tolerated in earlier Windows are blocked in newer ones.

In conlusion: Windows XP should be compatible with most of applications for its predecessors (exceptions are some system dependend things and "rogue" applications).
Unfortunately for us, some Windows games belong to those "rogue" applications... The programers just did not care about it (their target platform was W9x or even W3.X, not Windows NT which were for long time not very good for games).

I do not want to offend anyone 😀 but it seems to me that CinciTech just confuses newbies around here with false information ...

Mirek

Back in the days of DOS, for anyone who's tried configuring games in DOS... You had to set up the sound, video, mouse, keyboard, joystick, CD-ROM, network card, modem, etc, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND BY HAND! Sometimes it was as easy as telling Doom that you used a Sound Blaster card and it worked, sometimes the game would never figure out how to use your Gravis Game Pad. Windows came up with this cool idea that you should have drivers in the OS instead of in the application, and one set of working drivers for everything. (First DirectX I used was 3.0, and it sucked so bad I said it would never go anywhere. Guess I was wrong...)

Older DOS based games were made to access the sound card, for instance, directly. They had to in those days. Now, Windows XP has protected mode drivers, which allow software to use the drivers, but not access the hardware itself. Now, take a software that's trying to use your modem directly, and a modem that is not only configured via Win drivers, but also has WinXP disallowing the software to access anything but the driver. The end result? The hardware is unusable to the old way of writing applications.

Personally, I don't see the safety benefit to limit a program from touching the sound card directly, but obviously you don't want a malicious virus to start dialing 900 numbers through your real mode driver on your modem.

And to Mirek, I'm sorry you feel that way. Admittedly I was wrong about 95 not running 32bit programs. It's a shame you feel the need to openly discredit everything I say for one mistake. 🙁

CinciTech wrote:

And to Mirek, I'm sorry you feel that way. Admittedly I was wrong about 95 not running 32bit programs. It's a shame you feel the need to openly discredit everything I say for one mistake. 🙁

I am sorry if you feel this way, it was not my intention. But I had to correct you (not only W95, but also 16 bit application in WXP).
You were quite wrong and you were saying it with a persuasive air of a computer specialist and it did confuse people (as you can see above)
I have been programmer for a few years and even I felt a bit of doubt after reading your information about W9x.
I certainly had no intention to put you down, I am sorry if you took it personally.

Mirek

I don't believe I was wrong about 16 bit applications in XP. I said they might work, but are not guaranteed to work. Microsoft takes the same stance, that XP is not designed to work with 16bit applications... Maybe I should have been more specific and noted that they will crash if they're trying to access hardware devices directly. I added that in my last post, (apologies if anyone has been confused)

Greets from a fellow programmer, (PLC water telemetry right now), and sorry to take offense to the statement.