02-19-2007, 02:53 AM
Why not use the 16-bit version? I think I used to do that.
Seeing as the 32-bit version would be emulated on win3.x, there would be no performance gain in choosing that over the 16-bit one, as far as I see.
Actually, reading wikipedia on win32s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s), it seems that it was more of a transition-model than actual 32-bit support in 16-bit systems, so you might be out of luck trying to make VB4.0 work in the 32-bit version.
Seeing as the 32-bit version would be emulated on win3.x, there would be no performance gain in choosing that over the 16-bit one, as far as I see.
Actually, reading wikipedia on win32s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win32s), it seems that it was more of a transition-model than actual 32-bit support in 16-bit systems, so you might be out of luck trying to make VB4.0 work in the 32-bit version.
url=http://www.copy-pasta.com]CopyPasta[/url] - FilePasta