I have an old 16-bit program (circa 1995) that runs fine on two different Windows 7 Professional 64-bit computers. However, I can't get it to run properly on my new Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit laptop. About 90% of the program's functionality seems to work fine, but the 10% that isn't working is the most critical to me. I've diddled around with all the 'compatibility mode' settings for running the program and none of them do anything.

Jan 23, 2017 Como vimos muitas pessoas buscando o Windows XP SP3 e seus. 2008, 2010, 2012 e. Mais de 100 MB em drivers LAN e AHCI/SATA.

I've also tried moving older versions of some DLLs to the program's home folder, but that had no effect either. Any and all suggestions welcome!

Let me know if you'd like to know the details of the functionality that isn't working. The program is called 'Concord for Windows'. It is a book research program published by my church and recently abandoned in favor of a web-based subscription research tool. I'm perfectly satisfied with the old program and would rather not pay $$$ per month if I don't have to for the same functionality. The program comes with a set of books written by the founder of my religion, and also includes the King James version of The Bible as well.

It has a feature that allows you to create a list of references ('citations') to any of the books that can be stepped through to read them in order. This feature, as well as all the general book search features works fine. However, when a feature is used to scan the entire list of citations and copy the book texts to the clipboard, the program returns an error message that complains that an odd character (always different) is found that does not follow the specified format for the citation. Probably much more info that you wanted. Perhaps I should have simply said that I don't know for sure if it is 16-bit. Pink Panther Passport To Peril Download Mac more.

I assumed, due to its age (about 17 years old), that it would have been 16-bit. I apologize for making an uninformed and newbie assumption. The copyright notice on the last released version of the program is 1999, but I'm pretty sure it was first released around 1995. As I said in my prior post, it was written for Windows - and I'm pretty sure the original name was 'Concord for Windows 95' (or maybe '98'). For the moment, I'll asume it's the Windows 95 version (probably is if you can use the mouse).

Start Concord, then click Help and About Concord. What version is reported? A patch is available for the Windows 95 edition to improve compatability with Windows 7, Vista, and XP. Close Concord if it's running, then run the patch program as Administrator. If you're running a 64-bit version of Windows, elect to install to the C:Program Files (x86)Concord folder, otherwise choose the C:Program FilesConcord folder.

[ EDIT: If Concord is installed in some other folder, select that as the patch destination. ] Edited December 20, 2012 by TomGL2.

TomGL2- I've already installed the patch, as Administrator (V 1.0.05 in the About window). It fixes other things, but doesn't fix this problem. Thanks anyway! Other things I've tried: Uninstalled, then re-install as Administrator and install 1.0.05 patch as Administrator.

Also tried running as Administrator using every option in the Compatibility Mode list. Always get the same behavior.

If DosBox will run an old Windows program, I'll try that tonight when I get home. (Btw, I *did* RTFM for DosBox, 'Joe C'. It doesn't say specifically that it will run anything other than old DOS programs.). M$ added a nicer gui for 98se, but underneath wasn't it still a dos based o.s.?

The 'nicer gui' was introduced with Windows 95. The installation of Internet Explorer 4 (included in the last Win95 release) added substantial improvements that made it nearly identical to Windows 98 (which also shipped with IE4). It's an almost universal misconception that Windows 95/98/ME are 'DOS-based'. DOS loads two important drivers for 32-bit memory management and file access, then passes control to win. God Mariamman Mp3 Songs Free Download. com.

Still in real mode, Win.com loads the monolithic VMM32.VXD plus any individual VXDes, and starts real-mode initialization for any VXDes that require it. At this point, however, VMM32.VXD is given control and switches to 32-bit protected mode. No DOS calls are made passed this point, and even BIOS calls are rare (only to coordinate hardware configuration data, as most OSes do).

While a little 16-bit code is loaded (like display.drv and keyboard.drv), the vast majority of processes are 32-bit running in protected mode. In cases where real-mode would appear to be necessary, the Windows 9x kernel uses various techniques to minimize the need. For example, a real-mode (DOS) program making a disk access request would generate a DOS Int 21, forcing the CPU briefly to real mode.

But instead of the resulting Int 13 request being passed to the BIOS, which would require continued real-mode operation, the CPU returns to protected mode and the Int 13 is processed by the protected-mode PATA or SATA driver that directly controls the disk interface. (For Windows ME, the memory management and file system drivers, plus the equivalent of Win.com, are integrated into IO.sys, so it can directly load and pass control to VMM32.VXD.).

If anyone was sitting on the edge of their seats, wondering if DosBox worked for me (I mentioned that I'd try it last night): No, I didn't bother. I came across this at the very bottom of the 'Discussion' page for DosBox (): ## 'This Program Requires Microsoft Windows' I followed the instructions to set up a game and it said 'This Program Requires Microsoft Windows'. I am using Windows 7 64 bit. The game was made for 16-bit Windows 95 or 98 I think. Please help!! The game is called SimLife. That message is correct.

DOSBox runs DOS programs, not windows programs. ## I'm still open to any suggestions! (But I'm about to give up any hope in getting this dang thing to work in Win 7 Home Premium.) Thanks to all for their suggestions (as well as the unrelated discussion). Nigsy: Thanks, I'm beginning to think that VMware may be the best solution too. I think I have a legal Win XP I can load - but if I can find an old copy of Windows 95, it actually might be fun to run that.

Of course, I'd love to avoid all that if possible. VMs, aren't like they used to be. I use Oracles Virtualbox and find it really good - It really is like you are running the OS on it's own, not at all 'Clunky' like the old virtual machines - Just give the VM enough Ram to run, 1gb should do it. Me neither — just repeating what my Mom told me. That explanation was tailored for Joe, although anyone with a somewhat above-average computer background can follow it. But there's just enough detail (I tried to be brief, honest!) to illustrate what's happening in those old OSes. It was said 'tongue in cheek', I think your posts are really informative - I often know how to fix things, but don't know why the fix works, over the years your posts have given me a lot of good information.

And a happy New Year!!

Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun.

As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site. Or read our to learn how to use this site.