Limitations on Running 32-Bit Windows Apps in 64-Bit Windows Vista?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will
  • Start date Start date
W

Will

In general, what limitations are there in running 32-bit applications from
the 64-bit version of Windows Vista? I read several places that the 64-bit
version appears to have problems working with many of the 32-bit
applications. If the support for 32 bit were completely seamless, then why
wouldn't someone run the 64-bit version, since it gives you the potential to
grow memory significantly.
 
It will not run the 16 bit apps. It will not have as complete driver
support.

Vista will be the first major(any?) OS which ships a 64 bit version in the
standard box, and it is the first major release when 64 bit processors are
cheap enough for the average person to have in their machines.

Many motherboards will not support the larger memory out of the box. The
real large memory chips are still quite expensive..
 
32-bits apps run in a Windows on Windows64 emulation mode. The emulation is
very thin and you can read about it at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s/win64/win64/running_32_bit_applications.asp

Any legacy app still using any 16-bit components, including the installer,
will not work on any x64 OS. This is because an x64 OS must use 32
significant bits. Second any 32-bit app with a 32-bit device driver cannot
work because all device drivers have to be 64-bit.

A lot of popular software like cd/dvd burning software, utilities with
scanners, packet writing software and so on have to be updated for a 64-bit
target. Other software may have issues due the way they were written.
Having said that, most productivity apps and games do run and perform
smoothly.
 
Actually, XP Pro x64 and quite a few Linux 64-bit systems have been out
there for a year.

Zapper said:
It will not run the 16 bit apps. It will not have as complete driver
support.

Vista will be the first major(any?) OS which ships a 64 bit version in the
standard box, and it is the first major release when 64 bit processors are
cheap enough for the average person to have in their machines.

Many motherboards will not support the larger memory out of the box. The
real large memory chips are still quite expensive..
Click to expand...
 
They should have made Vista 64-bit only. It would have been one year of
serious pain but would have resulted in a much faster transition to 64-bit,
and we would all enjoy the benefits of that within a year. Most users are
probably going to get new hardware and video cards to run Vista anyway,
since it is such a memory pig and has such high end graphic requirements.
Most systems being sold today have 64-bit as a standard feature in the
processor. By releasing both versions, 90% of all users will retreat to
the 32-bit version in order to get solid device drivers, which just
fractures the market and delays indefinitely the transition to 64-bit.
 
Colin Barnhorst said:
A lot of popular software like cd/dvd burning software, utilities with
scanners, packet writing software and so on have to be updated for a 64-bit
target. Other software may have issues due the way they were written.
Having said that, most productivity apps and games do run and perform
smoothly.
Click to expand...

And of course they won't update for 64-bit because users will all be buying
32-bit, because all of the device drivers and applications are written for
32-bit. Catch 22.
 
Why should Vista only be 64bits? Hundreds of millions of computers are
capable of running 32bit Vista but not 64bit. Tens of millions can run it
with Glass. Why should those users be told they cannot upgrade to Vista
just because 64bit computers are a good idea?

What does "retreat to the 32-bit version" mean? They are using 32-bit now
so what's to retreat to? Who are we to tell anybody that the computer they
have now is not acceptible?

Are we to become the architecture police?
 
Its their choice.

Will said:
And of course they won't update for 64-bit because users will all be
buying
32-bit, because all of the device drivers and applications are written for
32-bit. Catch 22.
Click to expand...
 
As an aside, I am running XP Pro SP2 natively on my Mac. It has a Glass
capable video adaptor and if I want to I can upgrade to Vista next year.
Are you telling me that I should not be allowed to do this just because the
core duo processor in my computer is 32bit?
 
Colin Barnhorst said:
Why should Vista only be 64bits? Hundreds of millions of computers are
capable of running 32bit Vista but not 64bit. Tens of millions can run it
with Glass. Why should those users be told they cannot upgrade to Vista
just because 64bit computers are a good idea?

What does "retreat to the 32-bit version" mean? They are using 32-bit now
so what's to retreat to? Who are we to tell anybody that the computer they
have now is not acceptible?

Are we to become the architecture police?
Click to expand...

From Microsoft's point of view, it is expensive to maintain multiple
versions of the same OS. So certainly their profit goes up if they can
consolidate. Short term they sell less, but within a year people would
welcome a migration to 64 bits as prices on hardware commoditize.

From the customer's point of view, it is expensive to have to support
different versions of the same OS. No one wants the hassle of multiple
versions of drivers and applications and partially supported configurations.

Every release of an OS involves decisions and trade offs that necessarily
exclude some part of the market from participating in the new OS, based on
memory requirements, processor requirements, graphic requirements whatever.
That puts a software manufacturer in the role of being architecture police
whether they want to be or not. Microsoft made a mistake in 1985 of trying
to support Windows 1.0 on 286 processors. They used all your same
arguments about trying to find a mass market, but in that case the marketing
decision led to a low market adoption of the new technology because it was
not able to use features in the higher end 386 architecture effectively.
In this case supporting 32-bit means they will see rapid adoption of Vista,
but at a higher support cost for Microsoft and the customer's both. I
just think if you were to look out over a four year adoption curve,
supporting 64-bit only would not have significantly lowered Microsoft's
sales. They would just have been highly skewed to years two through four
instead of front-loaded. And customer adoption costs would be lower,
because the human costs of having to research compatible drivers and
applications and support complex configurations always greatly exceeds the
cost of the hardware.
 
95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this
market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.
 
Colin Barnhorst said:
95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this
market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.
Click to expand...

99.9% of all system builders buy 95% of their operating systems from
Microsoft. They'll do whatever Microsoft tells them to do because it's a
monopoly and they have no choice.

In any case, I understand that it's the easy decision to support 32-bit and
go for the most sales as fast as possible.
 
OEMx will not use a 64-bit OS that is not fully supported by device drivers
and productivity software. It does not follow that most machines shipping
next year will not be 64-bit capable. That appears to be what is going to
happen. At least one of the principal system builders plans to completely
discontinue use of 32-bit cpu's at the end of this year.
 
Ok, you lost me on this one...

You insinuate that MSFT is bad because they are a monopoly and they force
system builders to limit their offerings to MSFT's preffered
version......yet your WHOLE argument is the MSFT should FORCE EVERYONE to
ONLY run/support 64 bit???
 
It's the same logic that would drive MacDonalds out of business if they
decided to tell the customers what was good for them.
 
Zapper said:
Ok, you lost me on this one...

You insinuate that MSFT is bad because they are a monopoly and they force
system builders to limit their offerings to MSFT's preffered
version......yet your WHOLE argument is the MSFT should FORCE EVERYONE to
ONLY run/support 64 bit???
Click to expand...

I did not say Microsoft was bad. I was saying they are uniquely empowered
by a monopoly to shape a generation of technology.

In this case I think they could have used that enormous power to force a
shift to 64 bit computing sooner, with a resulting cost savings to both
Microsoft and their customers, as measured over a four year adoption cycle.
 
Colin Barnhorst said:
It's the same logic that would drive MacDonalds out of business if they
decided to tell the customers what was good for them.
Click to expand...

Not at all. If McDonalds told customers "don't eat beef, it's not good
for you" the customers would go to Wendy's, Burger King, and every other
greaseburger joint that competes with Wendy's.

If Microsoft told customers to use Vista they need 64 bit computers, then
what are the customers going to do? They aren't going to buy Apple
computers, or Linux, or any other OS because those really don't compete
effectively, and won't compete effectively in the next four years with what
Microsoft already has today. In that four years, every new computer system
delivered will be 64-bit capable, and the costs of a new office computer
will fall below $1000 fully equipped. The adoption cycle for Vista would
be slowed initially but would within a year dominate and become the standard
for every new PC delivered.

In any case, for the next four years, 32-bit dominates I guess. We'll
survive.
 
Will, your reality checks are coming back NSF.

Will said:
I did not say Microsoft was bad. I was saying they are uniquely
empowered
by a monopoly to shape a generation of technology.

In this case I think they could have used that enormous power to force a
shift to 64 bit computing sooner, with a resulting cost savings to both
Microsoft and their customers, as measured over a four year adoption
cycle.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top