![o{]:�)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
16 bit installer on 64 bit machine
I am trying to install my overly expensive CLCLT-5 (which I acquired at a massive discount as a student) from the wildly over-expensive Brepols.
I got my precious CAG2 running, but CLCLT is run installing.
I suspect that my problem here stems from a 16-bit installer, not a 32. So, even if I pick the "compatibility mode" to run the program, it won’t open.
Any ideas about a workaround?
I am toying with the idea of Virtual PC or VMWare.
I want to mention at this point that Brepols is completely UNRESPONSIVE to my e-mails requesting help with this problem.
I know that with the traffic this blog gets, which is considerable, my mentioning BREPOLS and CLCLT will be noticed in the search engines.
So, let’s mention this again… BREPOLS… BREPOLS… BREPOLS…. lousy and unresponsive about the very expensive CLCLT.
I’m very sorry to hear about your problems getting answers from BREPOLS and CLCLT. BREPOLS and CLCLT must be taking a ciesta…
I have VMWare running on my Mac to use some old Windows programs and it runs super great. Maybe this is a help.
Comment by Luke — 2 October 2009 @ 7:22 pmI’ve used Bochs for virtualization with some success…it’s freeware, so there’s no real cost in giving it a try other than your time. Otherwise, I’ve found VMWare to be much more responsive than MS’s Virtual PC. But for a single progam like this, I’d try Bochs first.
There’s no 16-bit subsystem on the 64-bit OSes, so there’s not much that can be done by you other than to complain to the issuing company. In other words, no real work-around other than the virtualization idea you’re already considering. MS Knowledgebase claimes that some 16-bit installers will be “upgraded” to 32-bit (not sure what the KB article really meant by that) and run, but makes no promises. Apparently CLCLT-5’s installer isn’t one of those so automagically “upgraded”, and until they issue an update you’re kind of limited to not using it or visiting virtual-land.
Comment by MatthewSiekierski — 2 October 2009 @ 9:40 pmLuke: Thanks, yes, the BREPOLS program CLCLT is very good. It is an incredible tool! I am all in favor of it.
Now if I could only get it to work on a newer machine!
Thanks for not answering BREPOLS!
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 2 October 2009 @ 9:43 pmMatthew: Right now my solution is to use a remote login to another computer which runs CLCLT just fine.
So, for me to use it on the road, I have to have internet access in order to use CLCLT. I wish BREPOLS would respond.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 2 October 2009 @ 9:46 pmFr. Z: Yes I too hope that BREPOLS responds quickly to your problems with their very wonderful CLCLT program. Does the BREPOLS CLCLT program run on a mac? I could ship you my extra lap top for a while…
I hope you hear from BREPOLS soon.
Comment by Luke — 2 October 2009 @ 10:11 pmLuke: Not sure about BREPOLS program CLCLT running on Mac. But since I don’t have a Mac I can’t load BREPOLS program very expensive CLCLT.
I should be able to load it on this computer.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 2 October 2009 @ 11:10 pmA virtual environment is a good way to do this. Just FYI the Pro and Ultimate versions of Windows 7 will include the option of a virtual WindowsXP environment to solve just this sort of problem.
Comment by Will D. — 3 October 2009 @ 12:36 amWow. this is like the meeting of the minds for computing! I’m just glad I can sort of use my Word program. I know so little about hardware and software that I wound up with a Mac laptop that has the wrong processor and overheats as a result. The new Macbooks have the older, slower processor installed. Mostly the overheating happens with video which doesn’t limit my computing much at all.
Still, this is not as big a problem as trying to get BREPOLS to contact their most noble customers about their CLCLT program (Holy Orders does beget nobility doesn’t it?).
Comment by Luke — 3 October 2009 @ 4:46 amFr. Z: If the application runs on DOS, you can try running it on DOSBox:
http://www.dosbox.com/
Comment by rusti999 — 3 October 2009 @ 1:12 pmI thought “wildly over-expensive” was an exaggeration, but it seems mild for 5000 euros!
Comment by Emilio III — 3 October 2009 @ 3:05 pmIn Windows 7, per the Microsoft seminar I attended a week ago, 16 bit support is gone. However, there is WOW64, and it was not clear whether WOW64 may provide support for 16 bit apps. It was also not clear form the presentation whether WOW64 is part of the basic installation, or must be installed by the user.
Comment by wmeyer — 4 October 2009 @ 10:58 amFound in an online discussion:
“Which version of Windows 7 are you using? Also 32 bit or 64 bit? I have no problem in 32 bit Windows 7 but there is no support for 16 bit dos programs in 64 bit (Vista either). If you have 64 bit Ultimate or Pro you can use XP mode and 16 bit Dos programs run fine (also in 32 bit as well).”
And if you do decide to try virtualization to solve the problem, I strongly recommend VirtualBox (free).
Comment by wmeyer — 4 October 2009 @ 11:01 amI’ve also been using VirtualBox to run Windows 3.1 and I’ve been very happy with the results. It starts up in about 10 secs and it’s very easy to mount the CD drive. Should run CLCLT fine.
Comment by quodcumque solveris — 4 October 2009 @ 11:53 amSo… you use the program to create a “virtual machine” and, on the virtual machine, “install” a virtual OS, such as an earlier version of Windows. Then, in that virtual older Windows environment, you run the program you want to run.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 4 October 2009 @ 2:08 pmYes. You create a new virtual PC (Click “New” on the toolbar and give it a name) and you’d need to have floppy disks or floppy disk images for the OS and mount them (Settings -> Floppy). Then click “Start” and it’s just like installing any other operating system from a boot disk. You could add CLCLT to startup too, so apart from the lack of copy and paste and the Windows 3.1 splash screen it wouldn’t be much different from running it directly.
Comment by quodcumque solveris — 4 October 2009 @ 2:41 pmquodcumque: Disk images… yes. That would be a handier way, wouldn’t it. I suppose that is a, what, VCD format?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 4 October 2009 @ 2:55 pmI think the extension can be .ima or .flp. They’re 1.4 mb each, one for each floppy disk. You would have to download them and I’m not sure about the legality of doing that. They do seem to be available on the internet. I own a copy of 3.1 anyway so decided it was probably ok, not much different from copying them to my PC and making my own images. I downloaded six numbered disk images and mounted each one in turn when I was instructed by my 3.1 installation to insert the next disk.
Comment by quodcumque solveris — 4 October 2009 @ 3:35 pmFr. Z, quodcumque,
While running a virtual machine is not as speedy as running native, you do not lose copy and paste. VirtualBox also offers a mode of operation I have not used, where the apps running in the virtual machine are made to appear on the desktop of the host. To me, that would be a very confusing mode, but for running CLCLT, it might be a very good. Also, for a 16-bit app, in an older OS, you’d not need to allocate much memory to the virtual machine.
As an alternative to direct copy and paste, another option is to assign shared folders to the virtual machine. In other words, you would give the vm mapped access to one or more folders on the host PC, to which you could then save files which apps on the host could easily access. I have one vm in which I run Office 2007 with 512MB assigned, and Word 2007 is faster there than Word 2003 on the host machine.
Another advantage to the vm is that you can copy the image of the vm to another machine on which VirtualBox is installed, and then be able to run the exact same OS and apps without any further installation work.
Comment by wmeyer — 4 October 2009 @ 4:41 pmwmeyer,
I’ll be very happy if you tell me I’m wrong, but I think the mode you’re referring to (seamless mode) is only available for certain versions of Windows and Linux. I can get seamless mode to work with other virtual machines but not Windows 3.1. Perhaps it’d work with Win 95, which is also said to be compatible with CLCLT?
Comment by quodcumque solveris — 4 October 2009 @ 5:07 pmFr. Z: I forgot to mention that I have VMWare installed. But the hardware on the laptop may not be sufficient for your needs. I’m not certain…
Comment by Luke — 4 October 2009 @ 6:06 pmquodcumque,
Yes, it is seamless mode which I was thinking of, and could not remember what they called it. I have only used it once, briefly, and have no idea how its limits map against the various OSes. You might wish to pose that question in the VirtualBox forums; I have found the folks there to be most helpful.
Comment by wmeyer — 5 October 2009 @ 6:34 amwmeyer,
I just checked the help file. It seems seamless mode is only available in Windows 2000 and above. A shame really
Father,
If I can be any help, do let me know. I’d be very happy to build a virtual machine for you.
Comment by quodcumque solveris — 5 October 2009 @ 11:51 am