Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut
From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Win3 Backward Compatibility (Re: Win3 bugs)
Keywords: Windows 3.0
Message-ID: <4658@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 90 04:15:53 GMT
References: <1990Mar29.132609.323@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk> <35221@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2479@cbnewsi.ATT.COM> <53979@microsoft.UUCP> <4633@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <1990Apr10.152705.856@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 22

Regarding Windows 3.0 running in protected mode:

In article <1990Apr10.152705.856@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
| Presumably you mean that NEW Windows programs - those
| specifically compiled for Windows 3 - will run in protected mode, while
| Windows 2 or 1 programs will continue to run in real mode or virtual 8086
| mode?  If people's programs stop running there are going to be an
| AWFUL lot of mad people - like me.

As far as I understand, this is the case.  However, I also understand that
for most programs converting to protected mode compatibility won't be much
of a problem.  As for your specific application, may I suggest a rewrite?
Even if it runs under Win3, it won't be a very attractive product if it
doesn't take advantage of the protected mode.  Users get a little miffed
when they've shelled out considerable bucks for a memory upgrade and their
software doesn't take advantage of it.

--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)
"Your degree in Economics is not necessarily an aide to finding gainfull
emplyoment, but at least it helps you understand why you're unemployed"
	--Samuel Bates