Bug 2131 - 16-bit support?

[Dustin Navea]

Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Sure, but that's a moot point, since everybody will work as much on stuff
> as he wants to see it progress, and that won't be too much in the Win16
> case since it's of not too much interest as compared to Win32 (or probably
> even Win64 relatively soon).

So, if john wants to play doom or duke, he either should know how to 
develop and contribute the code to get it working in wine, or have a 
friend that could do it for him?  I ask because if everyone is trying to 
get their own stuff working (and in the process fixing other stuff that 
comes up along the way) who will have time to help the minority of 
people that want to play a classic game like duke or doom?

> You're already sounding like the new marketing director of some random
> major software company...
> "we need FEATURES, FEATURES! Who cares about all that old crap..."

OOPS, didnt mean to come across that way.  I was basically saying that 
it seems that way, as more people migrate to 64 (and away from 32), we 
need ot keep up with the times, and from a maintenance standpoint i 
think it would be much easier to maintain 1 set of code as opposed to 3. 
  Which this has given me an idea that I will break down in the next 
email I send.

> I don't really need to tell you that this attitude is rather wrong in the
> Wine case, do I?

No, of course not!  But I see that you already have lol.

> Hmm, well, let me do it anyway :-)
> People are often migrating to Linux PRECISELY BECAUSE newer Windows versions
> are no alternative to them any more (old machines with insufficient
> performance/compatibility with newer Windows versions).
> And we better make sure we support their *older* Windows applications
> to some extent in that case.

See next email

Dustin