limitations running 32 bit windows apps 64 bit windows

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.
-- Will

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..
"Will" wrote in message

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.
-- Will

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/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/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.
"Will" wrote in message

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.
-- Will

Actually, XP Pro x64 and quite a few Linux 64-bit systems have been out there for a year.
"Zapper" wrote in message

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..
"Will" wrote in message 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.
-- Will

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.
-- Will
"Zapper" wrote in message

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..

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

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.

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.
-- Will

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?
"Will" wrote in message

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.
-- Will
"Zapper" wrote in message 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..

Its their choice.
"Will" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message 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.
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.
-- Will

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" wrote in message

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?
"Will" wrote in message 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.
-- Will
"Zapper" wrote in message 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..

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

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?

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.
-- Will

95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.
"Will" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message 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?
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.
-- Will

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.

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.
-- Will

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.
"Will" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message 95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.
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.
-- Will

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???

"Will" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message 95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.
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.
-- Will

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" wrote in message

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???

"Will" wrote in message "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message 95% of Windows are preinstalled by system builders. They will drive this market. MS will respond to it. Nothing else will matter.
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.
-- Will

"Zapper" wrote in message

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???

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.
-- Will

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

It's the same logic that would drive MacDonalds out of business if they decided to tell the customers what was good for them.

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

Will, your reality checks are coming back NSF.
"Will" wrote in message

"Zapper" wrote in message 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???
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.
-- Will