Bobby
Sun Jun 08 15:41:51 PDT 2008
It can't be "hackery" if it's something Microsoft did. It
can ONLY be "hackery" is someone else "hacks" the code" to
do something.
The capability for it to "swap out" 16-bit for 32-bit
installer probably has something to do with switches in the
compiler, not "hackery."
It deffinitely doesn't meet the criteria according to the
definition: Hack has several meanings in the technology and
computer science fields. It may refer to a clever or quick
fix to a computer program problem, or to a clumsy or
inelegant solution to a problem.
It's neither of the above.
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <#V67#BWyIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> Bobby Johnson
> <rjohnson@aol.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Where do you find any "hackery" in your reference?
>>
>> All I find is the same information that has been out for a
>> long time - if you need to run a 16-bit installer and/or
>> program, you will need to do it on version of Windows that
>> supports it.
>>
>> There's NO "hackery" to this, it just plain facts!
>
> The following quote is what I call "hackery";
>
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896458
>
> | However, these 64-bit versions of Windows may recognize
> | some 16-bit installers and automatically convert the
> | 16-bit installer to a 32-bit installer.
>
> Specifically, some 32-bit programs with 16-bit installers *will*
> successfully install on 64-bit versions of Windows as Windows recognizes
> the 16-bit code and swaps it out for compatible 32-bit code.