Can anyone tell me which version of turbo c will work on windows 7 and from where to download it free...
You can download it here. This is from the Embarcadero site; it does require registration before you can download it.
I do not know if you will be able to use this on Windows 7. I recently installed Borland Pascal 7 on a DOS 6.22 VM, just for kicks; the BP7 cannot be run on 64 bit Windows 7.
If you are targeting the windows platform have you considered looking at Visual C++ Express? It is free and quite functional.
Turbo C can not be used to target Windows 7. You may be able to run your Turbo C program in a compatibility mode but, unless there's a newer version I'm unaware of, you won't even be able to do that on Windows 7 64-bit.
Turbo C will work up to Vista. It will also work in 32 bit editions of Windows 7, in XP or 98 compatibility mode. It will not work on any 64-bit versions of Windows.
For 64 bit Windows I recommend DOSBox.
I don't recommend Turbo C. It's obsolete.
Reasons
Produces 16bit applications which dosen't work in modern OS.
The code is DOS specific.
Autocomplete not supported.
Dosen't support modern C++ syntax.
The project is discontinued.
I recommend Visual Studio. It's good for programming.
That said, Turbo C is still downloadable.
Related
I have a visual basic(.vbp) desktop application, actually an excel add-ins, it is in VB 2006 and for 32 bit.
I need to upgrade it so it can work with 64 bit, is it possible to do so and how. please guide I have already searched on all internet.
Visual Basic 6 (which came out in 1998, not 2006) predates 64-bit Windows development, and certainly predates it being a normal thing. (Windows XP 64-bit for Itanium was released in 2001, and it didn't get much use.) VB6 can only create 32-bit DLLs and Executables. In order to create a 64-bit application, you will need to recreate the program in a more modern programming environment.
Some of the older versions of Visual Basic .NET have built-in tools to assist with the migration, which can help with some automated translation from VB6 to VB.NET. But, you'd still need to do some amount of manual work to convert it, and thoroughly test for your use cases.
I have a pressing need to develop an application for Windows 98, and do not have the option of using a different operating system. In this day and age, is there any modern SDK that I can use to develop the application? What would be awesome, is if there was some way to target Windows 98 from Visual Studio 2015 but as far as I know there is no way of doing this.
Can I write and compile an application for Windows 98 using Visual Studio 2015? If not, then what is my next best option?
I assume you are writing native code: Windows 98 uses the Win32-API, like XP and modern Windows versions too. Some things are different, e.g. APIs like VirtualAllocEx() are missing. If you avoid these APIs (https://msdn.microsoft.com has a minimum requirements section for each API) and write native code, your program should run on Windows 98 too. If you have problems with Visual Studio, you can use good old gcc and an IDE like Eclipse, Code::Blocks, etc. Just make sure you don't compile it for the 64-bit plattform. Otherwise you will get a PE+ binary which won't run on Windows 98.
EDIT:
According to the discussion in the comment sections a few updates: Although a PE for 32-Bit (compiled on a modern Windows box) is compatible to Windows 98, there might be problems with Visual Studio due to its runtime library. As an alternative, you could try to
compile without runtime
use MingW as it uses msvcrt.dll
Nevertheless, it is still tricky to check which Windows version supports certain APIs due to updates in the MSDN. An older copy of the MSDN could help at this point.
I am a little confused. When I search the internet I see examples of Windows CE running on Raspberry Pi or Samsung ARM11. However, I cannot be sure if they hacked it somehow or CE officially runs on ARM devices.
If it does not, should I use Windows Embedded products to target arm processors?
And the last question is that How does Windows CE fare when compared to Windows Embedded 7 in terms of footprint?
Can anybody enlighten me please?
Yes, Windows CE (lately renamed Windows Embedded Compact) runs on ARM. Up to version 6 it supported also SH4 and in Compact 7 MIPS.
Latest version is named (confusingly) Windows Embedded Compact 2013 and Microsoft is committed to support it up to 2023.
It's a different kernel (real-time) but provides some compatibility at the API level with desktop and server versions.
The new Windows IoT Core version runs on Raspberry Pi 2 (ARMv7) and uses the same kernel of the PC version.
Microsoft used an ARM build of Windows CE for Windows Phone 7, 7.5, 7.8, before they jumped to running NT on their ARM phones. For sure it exists.
I can't figure out if you can actually get it though. They have "Windows Embedded Compact 7", but from the documentation, it sounds like it's only x86 and amd64. But maybe there's some way to get the ARM version... maybe an MSDN license or by being some kind of business partner with Microsoft?
On second thought, this link: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embedded-compact-7.aspx suggests that it does work for ARM.
Bonus: Apparently Windows 10 will run on the Raspberry Pi 2: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/windows-on-arm-lives-on-even-as-it-dies/ The only question is if they'll keep requiring every non-app .exe to be signed by Microsoft like they did with the surface RT, preventing normal win32 or .NET programs from being possible to develop for ARM on NT. If they don't give us that crazy restriction, this could be pretty neat.
Question from a Linux/Mac developer: I have compiled a 32-bit .dll (release flavor) under Windows 7 using Visual Studio 2010. Should this .dll be usable under all flavors of Windows 6 (a.k.a. Vista, if I'm not mistaken)?
Many thanks and RTFMs appreciated,
John Clements
In general: yes.
All current versions of the .Net framework run on both Vista and Win7.
Note that if you make calls into the native platform, either directly or via the Windows API Code Pack, you could have portability problems if you use functions available only in Win7. But for just straight .Net development, you should have no issue in running on any supported version of Windows.
Yes, the dll format didn't change for Windows 7. Only thing to remember is that if it's a .Net dll, the target system must have the proper .Net installed or the appropriate C/C++ runtime.
You're supposed to #define the _WIN32_WINNT macro to tell what version of Windows you want to support. The default in the SDK that ships with VS2010 is 0x600 which avoids you ever linking to an API function that is not available in Vista. So, yes, you're probably good to go.
Anyone successfully able to install Compaq Visual FORTRAN 6.x on Vista?
Tried the other day, but did not have any luck, so just wondering if obsolescence is upon this ol' compiler.
Thanks again.
To answer the main question, and to follow to several comments.
Intel® Visual Fortran Composer XE 2011's support for Vista is officially depreciated, as of Update 3 of March 2011. Newer versions support Windows 7. Up until then, Vista was supported (and from what I hear, it still works, although I do not have it as my OS so cannot ascertain for that).
Compaq's Visual Fortran, which is "of the same line" as MS Fortran Powerstation, then Digital, then Compaqs and now Intel's, is no longer supported by any modern OS, although I can testify it works nice on XP SP3. Since it was discontinued some time ago, I would not expect it to work on either Vista or Win7 without some fiddling.
This only goes for the IDE part, the compiler in itself works okey.
If you wish to go into the process of trying to set it up, these people's experience may be of some use to you.
I have heard that if you right click on the setup icon and click "Run as Administrator" then it works. Good luck. I am trying to find fortran for Vista still...
You could always run a VM with whatever OS it was written for. Not the most elegant solution, but it's not like Vista is exactly the best operating system anyways. Have you ever considered upgrading to XP?