Content deleted Content added
This is a comparison. Therefore I am moving the three formats most interesting to compare (Linux's, Windows's and Mac's) up to the top of the list and close enough to compare them. |
m Continuing my last change - also move Windwos 64bit to the top of the list |
||
Line 41:
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}▼
|-▼
! scope="row" | [[Portable Executable|PE32+]]▼
| [[Windows]] <small>(64-bit editions only)</small>▼
| style="text-align: center;" | <code>[[.EXE]]</code>▼
| {{Yes}} by file▼
| {{Yes}}▼
| {{Yes}}▼
| {{Yes}}▼
| {{Yes}}▼
| {{Yes}}▼
| {{Yes}}▼
| {{No}}<!-- Windows(PE32+) doesn't have support for fat binaries, the only way to simulate it is through clever tricks of using windows intel 32 (emulation/compatibility layer) to load the native stub (check fatpack project) -->▼
| {{Yes}}
|-
Line 314 ⟶ 327:
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
▲| {{Yes}}
▲|-
▲! scope="row" | [[Portable Executable|PE32+]]
▲| [[Windows]] <small>(64-bit editions only)</small>
▲| style="text-align: center;" | <code>[[.EXE]]</code>
▲| {{Yes}} by file
▲| {{Yes}}
▲| {{Yes}}
▲| {{Yes}}
▲| {{Yes}}
▲| {{Yes}}
▲| {{Yes}}
▲| {{No}}<!-- Windows(PE32+) doesn't have support for fat binaries, the only way to simulate it is through clever tricks of using windows intel 32 (emulation/compatibility layer) to load the native stub (check fatpack project) -->
| {{Yes}}
|-
| |||