Vista Home Premium: 32 bit version vs. 64 bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gordon Biggar
  • Start date Start date
G

Gordon Biggar

I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I am
thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same platform,
since I would prefer to keep these two computers as look-alikes. Some
desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit version. I am told that
the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of RAM, whereas the 64-bit
version will read up to 4 GB (?).

If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
complications that I might run into when I attempt to run programs/exchange
data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs from an earlier century;
would they be adversely affected?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.

Gordon Biggar
Houston, Texas
 
Here's a summary:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765

Vista Home Premium X64 supports up to 16 GB of RAM.

A lot of 32 bit software runs under Vista X64, but you'd have to check every
piece of software that you need to run. (For example: Photoshop CS2 has
problems under Vista X64, but CS3 is supported. CS4 is the current version.)

16 bit software is not supported under Vista X64. I don't recall a specific
example, but I believe that some old 32 bit software uses 16 bit code in its
installer. The installer will not run, even though the code itself could, in
principle, run OK.
 
Thanks for your inputs. Do you think that software manufacturers will be
forced to provide driver upgrades to make their products compatible with the
64-bit system? In fact, is Microsoft moving to replace its 32-bit product
with the 64?

GGB
 
It is hardware manufacturers that require providing 64 bit drivers for their
products. Software manufacturers do not need to rewrite their software from
32 bit to 64 bit unless there is a reason to do so, for example if their
application requires many G Bytes of ram.

For example Microsoft's next version of Visual Studio ( Visual Studio 2010)
does not come in a 64 bit version.

Spending effort now on getting the software to take advantage of multiple
cores may be a better pay off than converting an application to 64 bits.

32 bit Windows should be around for quite a few years yet.

If a 32 bit Windows application does not run on 64 bit Windows, it would
probably be in the software company's best interest to correct their code
and make it work with 64 bit (for increased sales).
One requirement for a Vista logo for a hardware manufacturer is to have both
32 and 64 bit driver support.
 
Thanks for expressing your views. The last thing I want to do is to have
two computers that will only partially talk to each other.

GB
 
I waited until 64 bit drivers were available for all of my peripherals
(Brother and HP printers, an Epson scanner) before installing Vista.

The only software I've needed to upgrade was Photoshop CS2.

I haven't tried to run old DOS software. If I needed to do that, I might
consider installing Virtual PC. (I'm not sure which OS I'd run in the VM. It
could be DOS 6.22 through Win98.) Microsoft doesn't support it on Vista Home
Premium, but I've read that it will install and run on it. I have never
tried the DOS Box utility, which is mainly intended for old games.

You'd have to decide whether all that fooling around would be worthwhile. (I
might do it as a learning experience, on my own systems.)

Gordon Biggar said:
Thanks for expressing your views. The last thing I want to do is to have
two computers that will only partially talk to each other.

GB
Click to expand...
(snip)
 
I haven't tried to run old DOS software. If I needed to do that, I might
consider installing Virtual PC. (I'm not sure which OS I'd run in the VM. It
could be DOS 6.22 through Win98.) Microsoft doesn't support it on Vista Home
Premium, but I've read that it will install and run on it.
Click to expand...

I have run Virtual PC on Vista Home Premium 64. It lacks USB support, so I
couldn't use it for the application I had in mind, but it otherwise was OK.
 
I am running DOS programs on VISTA (32-bit) now. I simply type in the
address of a stored batch file in the START SEARCH field, and I am off and
running. However, someone indicated to me recently that I might not be able
to do that using the 64-bit version of Vista.


GGB
 
Gordon Biggar said:
I am running DOS programs on VISTA (32-bit) now. I simply type in the
address of a stored batch file in the START SEARCH field, and I am off and
running. However, someone indicated to me recently that I might not be able
to do that using the 64-bit version of Vista.
Click to expand...

If these are really DOS programs - 16-bit, real-mode programs - then
they will not run in 64-bit Vista. If they are 32-bit console
programs, then they will run in 32-bit Vista. Nearly all command-line
programs you might use these days are, in fact, 32-bit console
programs.

If the extension is *.com, then it's a DOS program and you're stuck. A
*.exe file can be anything - DOS, 16-bit Windows (which won't run on a
64-bit system either), 32-bit console or windows program, 64-bit
program. In Win98 you could use Quickview to tell whether it was 16 or
32 bits, but I don't know how you can tell now.

*.bat files will not be a problem - depending on what programs they
invoke.
 
Tim --

These were programs that I wrote in dBase III back in the early nineties. I
use a batch file to launch them. Maybe , because of the dBase, is the
reason that they run under Vista 32-bit. And, maybe, the computer store
that I use will let me attempt to run one of the programs on one of its
64-bit demos.

GGB
 
Gary --

I'm not sure what you mean by "Spending effort now on getting the software
to take advantage of multiple
cores may be a better pay off than converting an application to 64 bits."
It's the "multiple cores" that throws me off.

Gordon
 
Sir Tepid --

Over the years, I got to know the Windows 2000 system relatively well, so it
must have been laziness that prevented me from upgrading to the modern
world. However, with forums like this, and inputs from folks such as
yourself, I may become educated yet.

From your comments, it sounds as if "creeping" upgrades (e.g., upgrading
from Office 2000 to Office 2003 - I hear a lot of complaints about 2007) may
work on a 64-bit system, but they won't be able to take full advantage of
its capabilities.

I also have some dBase III programs that I wrote in an earlier century that
run okay on my 32-bit system, but I have no idea whether they are too
antique for a 64-bit.

Thanks again for your comments.

Gordon
 
Gordon said:
I also have some dBase III programs that I wrote in an earlier century
that run okay on my 32-bit system, but I have no idea whether they are
too antique for a 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Hi Gordon

I regret that dBase III programs won't run on 64-bit Windows (whether
XP, Vista or Windows 2008).

dBase III is a 16-bit DOS application. One of the, uh, caveats with
64-bit Windows is that it cannot run 16-bit applications, whether DOS or
16-bit Windows. 32-bit Windows apps are supported by the "WoW64"
facility ("Windows on Windows 64") - but there's nothing to run 16-bit
apps. On 32-bit Windows, 16-bit apps are run by NTVDM.EXE, the "NT
Virtual DOS Machine" - but there's no 64-bit version of NTVDM.

A workaround, if you really need to run 16-bit apps on 64-bit Windows,is
to run a complete MS-DOS operating system within a Virtual Machine
application, running on 64-bit Windows. Microsoft Virtual PC, VMWare
Workstation, and DosBox are examples of such VMs.

Hope it helps,

Andrew
 
Thanks for the bad news, Andrew! It looks like I need to do some research
on the Microsoft Virtual PC.

Gordon
 
Andrew --

In reviewing some of the literature on Windows Virtual Machine, it appears
that it will run on Vista Business, but evidently not on Vista Home Premium.
If I use two computers, one with Home Premium and the other with Vista
Business, am I asking for trouble in terms of compatibility of files, etc.?

Gordon
 
Andrew McLaren's previous post was like this :
A workaround, if you really need to run 16-bit apps on 64-bit Windows,is
to run a complete MS-DOS operating system within a Virtual Machine
application, running on 64-bit Windows. Microsoft Virtual PC, VMWare
Workstation, and DosBox are examples of such VMs.
Click to expand...
Note that
VirtualPC(free), VMware and VirtualBOX ( free, by SUN )
are true virtualization software,
the virtualized code runs in given sandbox.

DosBox is DOS emulator
- CPU demand is much higher here, compared to SW above,
because the code is interpreted.
 
In reviewing some of the literature on Windows Virtual Machine, it
appears that it will run on Vista Business, but evidently not on Vista
Home Premium. If I use two computers, one with Home Premium and the
other with Vista Business, am I asking for trouble in terms of
compatibility of files, etc.?
Click to expand...

That limitation is purely a licensing matter, created by the marketing
guys at Microsoft to sell more Vista Business and Ultimate licences. In
fact when Virtual PC 2007 first shipped, Microsoft announced that it
would be free to run on *any* version of Vista. Then a week later they
changed the story and said that only Business, Enterprise and Ultimate
Editions would be covered in the licence. Technically there is no
problem running Virtual PC on Vista Home Edition, but it is contrary to
the EULA (gratuitous comment about predatory marketing, omitted :-)

If you need to run only DOS applications (such as dBase III) then DosBox
is a free, good quality DOS emulator which can run on Vista. See:

http://www.dosbox.com/

Of course, DosBox is not officially supported by Microsoft; but
depending on the level of assurance you require, that may not be an
issue (mainly if you have commercial SLAs to meet, etc).

Cheers,
Andrew
 
Extremely helpful. I will look at the DosBox, since I like to mirror my
platforms, if I can. But, "commercial SLAs to meet?" Don't know that one.
I am using the dBase applications for my own use, but that may not be what
you are driving at.

GGB
The Great Unwashed
 
To add to Andrew McLaren's reply, I have successfully run Windows Virtual
Machine on this Vista Home Premium x64 machine. I just ignored the
compatibility message :-)

The only problem I had was that I needed USB support, which is not
available (or at least it wasn't in the version I used).
 
Back
Top