Just because you can compile something for a platform doesn't mean you should

[robkelk]

Unretouched screenshot:


And here's the story that goes with it

10 out of 10 for code portability, but minus several thousand for practicality...


So, is .NET really that bad?

[Labster]

Typical El Reg sensationalism. Everyone I have talked to about C#/.NET says it’s a good language. And with Mono, you can run it on Posixes too. But like ObjC or Swift, it suffers from being oriented towards a single platform.

Windows’ extreme level of backcompat means that you can play DOS games today, even with Wine on Macs. The reverse is not at all true in the Mac world, where a significant amount of OS X code will no longer run on OS X - mainly 32-bit Carbon apps.

[Star Ranger4]

sensational? Yes.

Negating the basic question of should you, just because you CAN?

Not as much in my opinion.

[Black Aeronaut]

I dunno.  I think there's something to be said about being able to run apps with modern coding in Windows 3.11.

Think about it.  By this time, 3.11+DOS probably has about the same overhead on a modern computer that Damn Small Linux does.  Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, but still, you get the idea.

Just imagine that you need to do something that needs a serious number crunch like a big render job, and the renderer just happens to be in this backwards compatible .NET language.  Reboot into your boot loader and boot up a DOS+Win3.11 partition, then sit back and watch it burn through that job with the extra CPU cycles and memory bandwidth that a late-version Windows OS isn't taking up.

I'd especially love to see a setup like this running on some of the new stuff that AMD has been pumping out ever since Threadripper stole the show.

Come to think of it, I'd wager that Microsoft could probably benefit from taking the old Windows 3.11, and reworking it so it could properly run on modern 64-bit architecture.

Call it something like Windows Basic or Windows Retro - just a very bare-bones Windows OS that is capable of running modern apps and fully leveraging current hardware.  Only for the serious power-users and utilitarians that actually need to squeeze every last flop they can get out of their machines.

[hazard]

That would only work for as long as 3.11 could make effective use of modern calculation resources. If your current OS gets you twice as much calculation power or more compared to whatever Windows 3.11 ever could supply without crashing, well... 3.11 won't help you do a better job faster.

[Black Aeronaut]

Well, that's why I said that it should be reworked to run properly on 64-bit architecture - so it can take full advantage of the hardware resources.

[classicdrogn]

In that kind of situation, it really sounds like you'd be better off writing your number cruncher for something like Tiny Core Linux, which at least already has a 64-bit version, rather than 'doze 3.11. Even more so if you can send it to a graphics card for the calculations, because while finding drivers for obscure Linux distros can be a challenge, I'd expect the solutions for 3.11 to start at "write one yourself," have a high chance of ending at "go back to running it on a modern OS."

[Star Ranger4]

But I think thats kind of the point, that the 32 to 64 bit versions of Microsofts 'Seminal operating system', are so full of things that are not actually needed that....


Oh never mind. this is muck, finding a courner to go hide in

[robkelk]

Just because we can have a forum discussion doesn't mean we should?

[Star Ranger4]

Not when it goes this far off topic, Rob >.<;