16-bit apps in the CLI database?

[vevy]

Why "Yes":

• They are CLI apps.
• They can be made to work on 64-bit systems through emulation.

Why "No":

• They always need to be run through another emulation app on 64-bit systems (the vast majority).
• They can confuse a casual downloader.
• They would require a lot of effort to gather and add.
• There already exist fairly-recent efforts to gather them.
• Edit (after Andrew's post): They get tangled with Windows-native (32,64-bit) CLI tools in discussions and suggestions. For example, see here.

I am leaning towards "No" – for now at least.

[vevy]

That doesn't mean we ignore them altogether. I suggested to Andrew making a corner for 16-bit apps to continue sharing and discussing them.

[Andrew Lee]

What do the rest of you think about having a dedicated subforum for 16-bit CLI?

Not much work at my end to add a new subforum, but if there 's no interest, I don't see the point. Just have the odd posts about vintage 16-bit stuff lurking in the CLI Discussion forum.

[lintalist]

Perhaps a simple tag (similar to tool, package etc) indicating 16bit would suffice with a link to a forum thread explaining they work only on older systems (Win 95/98) and may require DOSBox, MS DOS Player or virtual machine to work. Entries that are added but are kept private won't bother most users I suppose. If at some point there are a substantial number you could still "move" them (using the 16bit tag as initial filter).

[Cornflower]

I second lintalist's suggestion. a tag is enough.

[vevy]

@lintalist @Cornflower

Thanks for the input. I just want to clarify that we talking about two related (but different) things (I realize I wasn't very clear):

1. Do we include them in the database at all?
2. Do we make a subforum for 16-bit CLI (to avoid confusion with 32/64-bit CLI that work out-of-the-box in 64-bit systems)?

 
 

What I understand is that you are for point #1 with a clarification tag (hint hint Andrew!).

I am personally hesitant because I wouldn't like a user to only find patchy coverage of a certain type (some occasional 16-bit apps but not others), so I'd personally wait, but if the majority is for it, so be it (maybe a multi-select field for architecture: 16/32/64 bit; kinda like "Runs On").

As for #2 (the subforum), I'd like to hear your opinions. There is a significant enough cut-off (do you need an emulator to run it?) plus:

- the age cut-off of almost all tools.
- the fact that most any DOS tool of any significance has already been ported/cloned to Win32 (so I, and I believe most users, wouldn't want to bother with 16-bit if it there is a modern port/clone).
- There are no more updates/support.

So, I am for a separate corner for them.

[lintalist]

Realistically I would only vote for a 16bit app for nostalgic reasons[1] not from a daily need for my workflow as I'm now on 64bit. But 16bit apps do work on 32bit systems which will be XP and Windows 7 users mostly I guess. And then you have DOS only such as Volkov commander as you recently pointed out which I did use in my Win98 days but not since, it would get my vote. Should someone add a 16bit/dos program and it goes public (not that likely I'd say) a note should be added to highlight it is 16bit/dos only or the more visible "tag".

I don't feel strongly about it so happy to set 32bit as minimum as such - should the cli corner attract much attention and visitors express an interest in such older apps (for retro-computing purposes for example) it can always be expanded.

[1] https://www.pcorner.com/list/UTILITY/RP ... IP/README/ this is such a great sort tool which I used "forever", it is so amazingly fast compared to other sort tools - didn't do extensive testing but other sorts I've tried are slower, which doesn't mean there isn't an equally fast/faster sort available somewhere nowadays - should I be on a 32bit system this would still be my "sort of choice"

[Andrew Lee]

Just to clarify, the question was whether we should have a dedicated forum to discuss 16-bit DOS apps, or whether they are rare enough we should just use the CLI Discussion forum for that.

I seriously doubt we should submit 16-bit DOS apps to the database, or they should be extremely rare exceptions. If that's the case, some verbose clarification that the entry is a 16-bit DOS app and why we have chosen to include it is in order! I mean, you don't see anyone adding Windows 1/2/3 programs to the database, do you?

[lintalist]

I don't see a need for a 16bit forum myself.

(But as a general remark: there are some very good 16bit apps that are better as their 32bit counter parts, so I would vote for one or two of these IF they are added - entries are easy to edit to highlight "16bit" should the need arise, but I don't won't add 16bit apps myself)

[vevy]

Would you oppose it?

My main concern here is to avoid repeating the same "heads up" for unaware readers about has the nature and requirements of 16-bit apps.

For example, here and here.

This way, with very little effort, we can have a subforum with a clear title "16-bit/MS-DOS CLI Tools" and FAQ where things can be simpler and discussions clearer.

[lintalist]

Would you oppose it?

Not really.

[Midas]

Late to the party as usual, but wanted to contribute my 2 cents...

Here's the two main cases where I would seek a 16-bit app: one being games, and two, being some very specific apps that never got developed further (like special hardware dashboards and such).

Other than that, I still see a possible niche for retro-computing -- see the example below -- but I doubt there'll be much feedback about that from our current regulars.



Oh, and a happy new year to all.