I'm really in grey area with this subject so I wanted to bounce some things off you guys here and see what you might think.

I'm running windows 7 x64 and attempting to run programs that use 16 bit installers. Ive given virtual XP a shot and tried compatibility mode to no avail. The only solution I have been able to think of is doing a dual boot. My question is, will this actually solve the problem? Or is it because I am running a 64 bit processor and therefore it will never be able to render 16 bit applications regardless of the operating system?

You will need to run a 32-bit Windows to use 16-bit apps, as 64-bit Windows drops support. Windows XP Mode should work fine. As should any other virtual machine solution such as VirtualBox.

Also supposedly DOSBox can run 16-bit Windows now, but you'd need Windows 3.11. And I'm not sure how to set it up, or how good it works.

Great thanks for the info! So I should be alright with a dual core processor then?

I actually got Windows up and running on Dosbox, for the sole purpose of playing SimTower.

There's a pretty good guide on the forums. But I wouldn't use it for work.

Although, yeah. I'd try VirtualPC or something first. I mean, going back to it: Windows 3.11 is bad. I mean, really bad. It's like driving a nail into your eye for the sheer pointlessness of doing so, or something.

What applications do you want to use that have 16-bit installers? There are many 32-bit applications that use 16-bit installers, and can be manually extracted and installed. Jedi Knight is one such application.

What problems were you having with XP mode? Because XP mode is just a 32-bit Windows XP install running inside Virtual PC. Anything that worked on an XP install will work in XP mode. You may also have better luck with Virtual Box, which is free.

On the topic 2 things:
1- Why does x64 drop 16 bit support?
2- Which virtual machine client can do good 3D accel (I.E for Rogue Squadron or Jedi Knight), preferably under a win98 guest.

1. I used to know this, forgot it. Ask Jon`C.
2. I believe that both Virtual Box and VMware Workstation provide DirectX support through some bastardized version of Wine, and thus should be comparable. I believe they both support OpenGL as well. I briefly tried JK under VMware Workstation and it worked fine.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384249(VS.85).aspx

Couldn't MS implement a sort of a emulator?

Yes, it's called XP mode.

I guess, but I mean something that allows me to directly run whatever 16 bit thing I want, instead of using a VM.

No, not worth the time and resources to actively support ancient applications.

Most new processors have native virtualization support, dual core is probably new enough. But even if not VirtualBox will still work and so will Virtual PC 2007 and VMWare, just not the new Virtual PC made for 7.

It is a lack of hardware support that explains why 16-bit support is dropped. x86-64 processors only support 16-bit emulation when running in 32-bit mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_8086_mode#64-bit_support

Windows Virtual PC is your best bet for 3d accel though I don't know if it can actually do it. The older Virtual PC 2007 which supports a wider range of hosts and processors might be able to do it too. VirtualBox and VMWare both have experimental Direct3D acceleration, and VirtualBox has OpenGL acceleration and video overlay acceleration.

Thanks for all the info. The game itself is actually the old phantom menace game literally titled after the movie. I've tried running it in XP mode and I still get the message about not being able to support 16 bit applications.

I will try some of things suggested and write back with my results.

not to sound like a retard, but i dont understand computers

explain the difference of the "bit" versions, what IS 64bit

Your computer is faster, it can handle bigger numbers and it can use more RAM.

Computer-speak: Wider registers, more registers. Longer memory addresses. Better execution modes. Not exclusive to 64-bit OS: Better security mechanisms (NX bit.) Better timers (HPET.) Other extensions (including hardware virtualization.) Windows-specific: more secure kernel, less legacy cruft, higher performance of C++ applications due to runtime changes.

Just to clarify, it does not mean that 64-bit is twice as fast as 32-bit. Also, 128-bit wouldn't be practical or faster in any way.

Hey, that's not true. 128 bit could be a lot faster. You could pack 4 32-bit integers into one register as long as you had hardware support.

Heh, I remember ads for consoles where they were like, "DUDE, it's got SIXTEEN BIT!! :downswords:"

Well since the jump is exponential I think it's going to be a looooong time untill we use up the 64 bit register space.

It may be different for x86 but I was under the impression that registers didn't have to be the same size as a memory addresses.

They don't. Mostly xx-bit is just to sound impressive without really meaning a whole lot. The number of data and address bits for memory access as well as register sizes can all be different.

They don't have to be, but in C a pointer is generally the size of the machine word.

Actual x86 addressing is a different story. Book. Storybook. Leatherbound parchment tome hand-transcribed by German monks in 800 AD.

Ah, you know you play too much ME2 when you read this with Mordin's voice in your head.