That's because Windows 11 only comes in 64-bit flavors and Program Manager as bundled with XP would be 32-bit. WoW64[1] can't bridge 64- and 32-bit binaries in the context of system components, such as the shell.
Try running that under 32-bit Windows 10, I never tried it myself but I have a feeling it should work.
>anything beneath the programs are a means not an end.
This.
Absolute backwards compatibility is why Windows (particularly Win32) and x86 continue to dominate the desktop market. Users want to run their software and get stuff done, and they aren't taking "your software is too old" for an answer.
Program Manager is a shell and was actually included in Windows all the way through XP SP2 when it was phased out. You can probably run it in Windows Vista through 10 if you copy the .exe over, too.
Been using Windows since 3.1, my dude. I know Windows like the back of my hands.
You can have multiple drivers for a device installed, but Windows will usually get very confused and/or the drivers will get very confused with themselves and things will get very janky very quickly.
It's really not worth the pain and hilarity compared to just KISS'ing with one driver and nuking and installing as desired. DDU was invented for a reason.
Anyway, Windows in Safe Mode will always fall back to its own default store of drivers. You can explicitly enable an exception for NICs, but otherwise no third-party drivers are loaded because the entire point of Safe Mode is to get Windows to boot using known-good, Microsoft-guaranteed drivers.
Windows Update can and will grab most third-party drivers for your hardware if you let it, this includes video card drivers from Intel, Nvidia, and AMD.
>It _can be_ useful. It can also _not_ be useful to others. It sounds like it's not a choice in this case, but a forced feature, and that's fine for some and not for others.
>So again, why _must_ Linux have an equivalent?
That is very different from simply asking why Linux should have a "Direct3D" built in like Windows does Direct3D.
>What do I gain?
To answer this again and more in-depth this time: A central, powerful subsystem that can be assumed to exist. We can assume Direct3D is and always will be available in Windows.
One of Linux's biggest problems is you can't safely assume anything will exist, in particular cases not even the kernel. This is the reason containers were invented, because you need to bring your own entire operating environment on account of being impossible to assume anything. The cost for this workaround is performance and complexity, the latter of which most users abhor.
>Is that always a good design choice?
Yes, it enables users thereof.
> Is that true of Windows Server, and if so, why do I need 3D rendering baked into my Windows Server? What about Windows Server Core... does the NT kernel have it baked in there?
If the server is a media server, say, having DirectX means the server can do encoding and decoding itself and that's something many people want.
Windows itself also needs Direct3D for rendering the desktop, which Server also obviously has.
I'm not aware of "primary" drivers if that's a thing. I know that Safe Mode always falls back to the drivers Windows has by default because that's the whole point of Safe Mode.
You said "why must Linux have" a feature that can be useful to some and not useful to others. Taking that to its strongest conclusion[1], you're saying Linux shouldn't have something if it's not useful to "everyone" and asking for counter arguments; this is not unlike the "Do one thing and do it well." Unix ethos.
Clearly, as demonstrated by history, most people prefer that their computers can and will do the many things they need or want with minimal finagling. That is what having DirectX inside Windows means, and why Linux which makes that a finagling option at best and flat out refuses as heresy at worst flounders.
>I don't see what the point you are trying to make is
Parent commenter said Linux shouldn't have <X> if it's not useful for everyone, though more likely he means for himself. Either way, he is arguing Linux shouldn't have a feature for dogmatic reasons. Violating the Unix ethos of doing only one thing, or something.
Meanwhile, Windows (and Android) have features so people can actually get some bloody work done rather than proselytize about their glorious beardcode.
This line of thought is precisely why Linux continues to falter in mainstream acceptance.
Windows exists to enable the user to do whatever he wants. If the user wants to play a game or watch a video, Direct3D is there to let him do that. If he doesn't, Direct3D doesn't get in the way.
This is far better than Linux's (neckbeards'?) philosophy of Thou Shalt Not Divert From The One True Path which will inevitably inconvenience many people and lead to, you guessed it, failure in the mainstream market.
Contrast Android, which took Linux and re-packaged it in a more Windows-like way so people could actually use the bloody thing.
>So ample facilities were created to help the user out, such as "Safe Mode" , fallback drivers, and a graphics driver interface that disables itself if it crashes too many times (yes really).
Pretty sure most of this was already in place with Windows 95; I know Safe Mode definitely was along with a very basic VGA driver that could drive any video card in the world.
Software bloat and general lack of performance continue to be among the chief complaints end users have.
Not saying you're wrong, of course. The guy who passes the finish line badly wins the race, not the guy who fails the race goodly or the guy who doesn't even start running perfectly.
I'm pretty sure I have several lifetimes' worth of free credit monitoring with all the breachleaks happening all the damn time, if I could be arsed to redeem them.