Microsoft Word for Windows 1.1a, Native X64 Port(github.com)
88 pointsby BruceEel6 hours ago7 comments
  • spider-mario4 hours ago
    Tried to build it but it references a `cmake/GenerateMenuHelpHeader.cmake` that seems to be absent from the repository?
  • BaudouinVHan hour ago
    how complicated would a port to linux be ?
    • pythonRon20 minutes ago
      This was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read about this port. It's heartening to find out I'm not the only one!
    • firesteelrain40 minutes ago
      Just use WINE?
      • pythonRon19 minutes ago
        A native Linux application would be preferable, even if it does work with WINE (which I don't know... yet).
        • snarfy10 minutes ago
          Win32 is Linux's only stable ABI.
      • shakna25 minutes ago
        Afraid 16bit Word versions have a "Garbage" rating on Wine.
        • firesteelrain14 minutes ago
          I guess I misunderstood. It was ported to 64bit I thought
          • wolfi14 minutes ago
            was my impression as well
  • ulfw5 hours ago
    A screenshot or two would have been nice
    • qingcharles5 hours ago
      There are pics from the developer in this article (not sure why he neglected them in the README):

      https://www.neowin.net/news/developer-ported-word-for-window...

      • muterad_murilax34 minutes ago
        Top-left window icon looks garbled. A porting bug, maybe?
      • hulitu4 hours ago
        Wow, it really looks like Win 10/11. Microsoft is back to the roots now. But Word 1.0 even has 3d GUI elements. They must have had impressive computers back then.
    • consp5 hours ago
      Might the lack there of be copyright related? I guess not something you want to burn your hands on.
      • qingcharles5 hours ago
        The original source for WfW 1.1a was open sourced (I realize that doesn't mean there isn't copyright, but it's unlikely to be the reason that there are no pics):

        https://github.com/danielcosta/MSWORD

        • hnlmorg4 hours ago
          The point of open source is to address and concerns around copyright. And this source is not open source by the definition most people use when they refer to “open source”. It’s still proprietary but source available.

          However I will say, this source is unlikely to be useful to anyone beyond academic curiosity. So for the purposes of this project, the source license is “good enough”.

          • ptxan hour ago
            More concretely, Microsoft's license [0] gives you at most one of the four essential freedoms:

            0. Freedom to run for any purpose? No.

            1. Freedom to modify the program? Maybe; Microsoft can revoke it without cause at any time.

            2. Freedom to distribute unmodified? No.

            3. Freedom to distribute modified? No.

            I'm using the free software definition [1] because it's simpler and clearer than the open source definition [2], which is usually considered mostly equivalent in practice, but as far as I can tell Microsoft's license satisfies zero of the latter's ten criteria, apart from perhaps non-discrimination and technology-neutrality. Most of the criteria of the open source definition have to do with distribution, which is not allowed by Microsoft's license.

            [0] https://computerhistory.org/blogs/microsoft-research-license...

            [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

            [2] https://opensource.org/osd

          • inigyouan hour ago
            We should care about Microsoft's licenses exactly as much as Microsoft cares about ours.
        • fragmedean hour ago
          The license isn't really open source. It's more like source available. Non-commercial use only.

          https://github.com/danielcosta/MSWORD/blob/master/LICENSE

          says

          You may use, copy, compile, and create Derivative Works of the software, and run the software and Derivative Works on simulators or hardware solely for non-commercial research, experimentation, and educational purposes. Examples of non-commercial uses are teaching, academic research, public demonstrations, and personal experimentation. “Derivative Works” means modifications to the software, in source code or object code form, made by you pursuant to this agreement. You may copy and refer to any documentation provided as part of the software. You may not distribute or publish the software or Derivative Works. You may not use or test the software to provide a commercial service unless Microsoft permits you to do so under another agreement. You may publish and present papers or articles on the results of your research, and while distribution of all or substantial portions of the software is not permitted, you may include in any such publication or presentation an excerpt of up to fifty (50) lines of code for illustration purposes.

          • firesteelrain19 minutes ago
            It’s interesting that the license says “You may not distribute or publish the software or Derivative Works.”

            There is now a published GitHub of a derivative work.

  • pmkary3 hours ago
    Cool!
  • Oliveaniss4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • RinatNabiev4 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • larodi2 hours ago
      ermmm care to explain whY? tis just different pointer arithmetics, and given this was written in C, shouldn't be so immensely difficult?
      • InfraScaleran hour ago
        Hold on let them ask Claude again
      • yieldcrvan hour ago
        it’s just because allot of projects throw in the towel

        but some don’t

        agentic engineering would make this easy, especially when following the blueprint of the projects that do this translation already

  • zatkin4 hours ago
    >This project is a fully working native Windows x64 port of Microsoft Word for Windows 1.1a, whose historical codename was Opus.

    Not to be confused with the Anthropic LLM model Opus - what was once an old codename is as good as new once again!

    • layer83 minutes ago
      “Opus” is/was a lot of things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus#Computing
    • userbinator4 hours ago
      Would be ironic if Claude Opus was used in making this port. IMHO the README does have a bit of LLM smell to it.
      • pcblues3 hours ago
        Check in the github src directory.
        • derdi3 hours ago
          What should one check for?
      • dsign4 hours ago
        I came here to say that. Though not in a bad way; the economics of what is possible but practical/impractical changes greatly with LLMs, and I suspect and hope we will be figuring out the ramifications for a while.
    • trvz4 hours ago
      It’s a common word amongst people with even a bit of erudition. In truth, using it for any kind of software is overusing it.
      • seri4l2 hours ago
        For erudites Word is a much better name. We seldom use that verbum.
    • IsTom4 hours ago
      And not to be confused with its plural form "opera".
      • wolfi12 hours ago
        the Romans, btw, knew two kinds of labour: labor, -is the laborious one (see ?), and opus, the achievement
      • kotaKatan hour ago
        The Oracle corporation would like to speak to you about the name of their property management system.

        (Also some Norwegians and a Web browser?)