windows vista 64
MS
Applications? Or is it necessary to buy all new 64bits programas?
Thanks in advanca.Manuel
Dave
"MS" <manuel...@megamail.pt> wrote in message
news:49724114$0$26056$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
> Hi, my question is on Windows vista 64. Is it capable of running 32 bit
> Applications?
Some. It's a matter of, which applications were written for 64-bit OS?
Which ones can be upgraded to a 64-bit version? Which ones need to be
replaced? How much will it cost?
> Or is it necessary to buy all new 64bits programas?
Probably. Y'know, the ironic thing is...with 99% of computer users so
willing to use any excuse to bash Vista, this is the ONE area that Vista is
kind of weak on. Yet, if you point out the lack of 64-bit software for
vista, you will get flamed to oblivion. Go figure.
The truth is, it is likely that at least some, or maybe even most, of your
current software, will need to be replaced (for a fee, of course) or
significantly upgraded (usually for a fee, of course)
There is a microsoft-maintained list of programs that are 64-bit OK. If I
can find the link, I'll post it again below. -Dave
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/default.aspx
There you have to search software by title, then click 64-bit, as the
results default to 32-bit.
Conor
> Probably. Y'know, the ironic thing is...with 99% of computer users so
> willing to use any excuse to bash Vista, this is the ONE area that Vista is
> kind of weak on.
Bullshit.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Conor
> Hi, my question is on Windows vista 64. Is it capable of running 32 bit
> Applications? Or is it necessary to buy all new 64bits programas?
>
Ignore that Dave fucker, he hasn't a goddamn clue.
VanguardLH
32-bit *programs* run just fine. It's the hardware drivers you have to
be concerned about. Drivers and OS have to match. Apps and OS do not
(regarding bit-width) since Windows uses WOW to provided an emulation
layer for 32- and 16-bit applications. Have you checked that ALL your
hardware has a 64-bit driver for it?
Dave
"Conor" <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6tf7e5F...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <49724114$0$26056$a729...@news.telepac.pt>, MS says...
> > Hi, my question is on Windows vista 64. Is it capable of running 32 bit
> > Applications? Or is it necessary to buy all new 64bits programas?
> >
> I have yet to find a 32 bit program that doesn't run on Vista x64.
> Ignore that Dave fucker, he hasn't a goddamn clue.
>
My source is Microsoft. Yours is? Your ass, apparently. -Dave
Dave
> 32-bit *programs* run just fine.
Some. Many will not run OK on Vista 64, though.
> It's the hardware drivers you have to
> be concerned about.
That is absolutely true, but the OP didn't ask about drivers. :)
Still, it's amazing how some really popular VISTA compatible hardware does
not have 64-bit vista drivers available. That even tripped me up when I
bought a sound card recently. A SOUND CARD! Of all things. I knew it was
vista compatible, so didn't think to check 64-bit. My mistake. Just used
it in another system that had a sound card with 64-bit drivers available.
(did a swap) So no biggie.
> Drivers and OS have to match. Apps and OS do not
> (regarding bit-width) since Windows uses WOW to provided an emulation
> layer for 32- and 16-bit applications. Have you checked that ALL your
> hardware has a 64-bit driver for it?
Yeah, Microsoft tried hard to support all the older non-64-bit software.
But there's still a good chance that somoene asking the question will be
forking out at least some money to make all his current 32-bit software run
on Vista 64.
Vista is great. But 64-bit software for it is still playing catch-up. And
if you are building for Vista 64, you have to research drivers CAREFULLY
before buying any hardware. -Dave
Kent_Diego
> Applications? Or is it necessary to buy all new 64bits programas?
>
> Thanks in advanca.Manuel
run every modern program and almost every older program. Old program like
disk emulation software, DVD burning software and anti virus can have
problems but they all have newer version that do OK now. When I first went
to Vista x64 I had two pieces of hardware that did not have 64 bit drivers.
A printer and webcam. It took several months before I found a 64 bit driver
for the printer. In 2007 the webcam manufacturer released 64 bit drivers so
all is good now.
VanguardLH
>>
>> 32-bit *programs* run just fine.
>
> Some. Many will not run OK on Vista 64, though.
Name them. Other than low-level utilities that want direct access to
the hardware, the 16- and 32-bit emulation layers (WOW = Windows on
Windows) runs the vast majority of those apps just fine under a 64-bit
version of Windows.
>> It's the hardware drivers you have to be concerned about.
>
> That is absolutely true, but the OP didn't ask about drivers. :)
But your advice is not just misleading but drastically incorrect. Not
everyone's suite of applications is just the old DOS games that you play
that want direct hardware access.
> Yeah, Microsoft tried hard to support all the older non-64-bit software.
> But there's still a good chance that somoene asking the question will be
> forking out at least some money to make all his current 32-bit software run
> on Vista 64.
Not with 32-bit apps. I have seen some older 16-bit apps not *install*
but that is because they check for a version range of the OS, not that
their code won't run. If push comes to shove, go use VirtualPC or
VMWare Server, both of which are free to install the old OS in a virtual
machine and run your incompatible applications there. Or use multi-
booting (not Microsoft's stupid dual-booting) to have another primary
partition in which you install the old OS (you'll have to be careful of
OS install order due to one stepping atop the other's MBR bootstrap
code). So it is very possible that:
- The 32-bit apps that the OP asked about (but never bothered to
mention) will run just fine under WOW64.
- Most 16-bit apps will run but they may refuse to install. There's a
difference and some folks sometimes figure out tricks to fool the
installation program.
- For any that don't run correctly, use a virtual machine or multi-
booting to continue using the old versions of your software. That's
what I did for my aunt's WinXP 64-bit platform for some old greeting
card software and an old scanner so she could keep using them.
> Vista is great. But 64-bit software for it is still playing catch-up. And
> if you are building for Vista 64, you have to research drivers CAREFULLY
> before buying any hardware. -Dave
There is extremely few non-vertical 64-bit applications. The vast
majority of programs are 32-bit, and the vast majority of those will run
under the WOW64 emulation layer on a 64-bit version of Windows.
DevilsPGD
was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>> 32-bit *programs* run just fine.
>
>Some. Many will not run OK on Vista 64, though.
Name three.
DevilsPGD
was claimed to have wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 32-bit *programs* run just fine.
>>
>> Some. Many will not run OK on Vista 64, though.
>
>Name them. Other than low-level utilities that want direct access to
>the hardware, the 16- and 32-bit emulation layers (WOW = Windows on
>Windows) runs the vast majority of those apps just fine under a 64-bit
>version of Windows.
64-bit Windows OSes cannot run 16-but applications, but the 32-bit layer
works nicely for nearly everything above the driver level.
>- The 32-bit apps that the OP asked about (but never bothered to
>mention) will run just fine under WOW64.
>
>- Most 16-bit apps will run but they may refuse to install. There's a
>difference and some folks sometimes figure out tricks to fool the
>installation program.
No, most 16-but apps will not run:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282423
"No 16-bit code can run, except for recognized InstallShield and Acme
installers (these are hard-coded in Wow64 to allow them to work)."
(The way these work is that Windows has a 64-bit version of the
installer that can read the 16-bit installer and perform the install,
for the use of 32-bit apps that used a 16-bit installer)
Ed Medlin
"Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote in message
news:gktsk9$l6n$1...@news.motzarella.org...
His source is probably the same as mine Dave......experience, and my
experience with Vista 64 is exactly the same as his. The only weakness I
have found with 64bit Vista is driver support for a few older peripherals
and even with those if you do enough searching around you can usually find
some sort of work around or a driver. Experience is better than some white
paper from MS. Do you even run Vista 64?
Ed
Conor
> My source is Microsoft. Yours is? Your ass, apparently. -Dave
>
Are you going by the fact that "Actrion recommended" means they don't
work?
If so, it proves you're a fucking dick. For a start, Battlefield 2 has
"Action recommended" under it and I've been running that since Vista
came out as have 100,000's of other people.
And do you know WTF "Compatibility Mode" is?
Fuck, you're dumb.
I have only had one game that was any problem and that was Colin McRae
Rally 2005 which required me going to Codemasters to get a 64bit driver
for their copy protection.
Conor
> >
> > 32-bit *programs* run just fine.
>
> Some. Many will not run OK on Vista 64, though.
>
Vista x64 at all.
VanguardLH
Thanks for that info. I also found:
Dave
> experience with Vista 64 is exactly the same as his. The only weakness I
> have found with 64bit Vista is driver support for a few older peripherals
> and even with those if you do enough searching around you can usually find
> some sort of work around or a driver. Experience is better than some white
> paper from MS. Do you even run Vista 64?
>
>
> Ed
I did briefly, until I discovered that half of my 32-bit software wouldn't
work on it, without throwing significant money at it. Including a recent
version of Microsoft Office, btw. -Dave
Dave
"DevilsPGD" <Death...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:o9b5n4t8fq1v0racp...@4ax.com...
There's thousands listed on the Microsoft web site. Choose any three you
want. -Dave
Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)
> Hi, my question is on Windows vista 64. Is it capable of running 32 bit
> Applications? Or is it necessary to buy all new 64bits programas?
Yes, 32-bit stuff still works, including games.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04.1) Linux 2.6.24-16-generic
^ ^ 19:13:02 up 24 min 3 users load average: 7.12 8.18 7.03
???! ???! ???! ???! ???! ???! ????? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
DevilsPGD
was claimed to have wrote:
>
>"DevilsPGD" <Death...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
>news:o9b5n4t8fq1v0racp...@4ax.com...
>> In message <gktt0g$op7$1...@news.motzarella.org> "Dave" <now...@noway2.not>
>> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 32-bit *programs* run just fine.
>>>
>>>Some. Many will not run OK on Vista 64, though.
>>
>> Name three.
>
>There's thousands listed on the Microsoft web site. Choose any three you
>want. -Dave
Okay, name three that you've actually have installed on your PC that are
of the latest/current vintage and don't have a driver component.
VanguardLH
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/default.aspx
The hardware has already been explained to you that 64-bit drivers must
be used on a 64-bit OS if you want full or any functionality from your
hardware.
Under the Software section, and because you have refused so far to
provide an example of just one 32-bit application that won't run under a
64-bit version of Windows, I chose the Image category. Rather than
hunting through all the choices to find incompatible imaging programs, I
clicked on the "Compatible" link. 306 programs listed there. I then
clicked on the "Not Compatible" link. 61 programs there - but of which
the vast majority indicated that there was an upgrade that would be
supported on Vista (so they were listing old versions of those
programs). Only 23 were actually listed as not compatible (i.e., there
was no "action" available to make the old version compatible for use on
Vista).
If you search on your product, you can select the 32- or 64-bit tab to
see if your application is compatible on that version of Vista. I did
an example search on OpenOffice which listed the old v1 as requiring
some action which, of course, was to upgrade to v2 which is compatible.
I did find some lists of software incompatible with Windows XP 64-bit,
like at:
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Software_Compatibility_with_Windows_XP_x64
Well, gee, look at what are incompatible. The utility programs that dig
into the OS or try to manipulate the hardware. Other such lists found
through Googling for them support the claims made here so far that it's
the drivers that you need to focus on. Of course, anything that wants
to dig into or embed itself into the OS (rather than execute as a user
process; i.e., a normal application) also needs to match the OS into
which it is attempting to embed itself. That's a "given DUH" for those
apps.
Dave
>> want. -Dave
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/default.aspx
>
> The hardware has already been explained to you that 64-bit drivers must
> be used on a 64-bit OS if you want full or any functionality from your
> hardware.
>
> Under the Software section, and because you have refused so far to
> provide an example of just one 32-bit application that won't run under a
> 64-bit version of Windows, I chose the Image category. Rather than
> hunting through all the choices to find incompatible imaging programs, I
> clicked on the "Compatible" link. 306 programs listed there. I then
> clicked on the "Not Compatible" link. 61 programs there - but of which
> the vast majority indicated that there was an upgrade that would be
> supported on Vista
Cheese and Rice! I wish I was home right now so I could go through all my
software and give you the exact versions. But I seem to recall that one
major problem I ran into was with Office 2007 (note: I'm referring to a
relatively recent MICROSOFT office suite). First, I don't remember the
exact version, so I believe that the program was Office 2007. What I do
remember, is that it would have cost a lot of money to make it compatible
with 64-bit Vista. And that was just one program (well, a suite of
programs). Out of dozens of programs I tried to install, at least 5 had
similar problems on Vista 64. That is, I would have had to throw
significant money at them, or replace them, at significant cost, to run them
on Vista 64.
I am not in the habit of spreading myths or misinformation when it comes to
computer issues. I write what I write based on my experience. Vista 64 is
still problematic in supporting 32-bit software. I base this opinion on,
the support for 32-bit software is hit and miss. If you have to spend money
to upgrade 32-bit software to make it run on Vista 64, I count that as a
MISS.
Yes, you can search through the Microsoft database to find compatible
programs. But this won't help you at all if you already own hundreds or
thousands of dollars of software and much of it is useless in Vista 64. In
other words, it doesn't help to know what WOULD run if you own what will NOT
run. -Dave
Conor
Conor
> Cheese and Rice! I wish I was home right now so I could go through all my
> software and give you the exact versions. But I seem to recall that one
> major problem I ran into was with Office 2007 (note: I'm referring to a
> relatively recent MICROSOFT office suite). First, I don't remember the
> exact version, so I believe that the program was Office 2007.
Now you are talking bullshit.
Ed Medlin
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:gl3276$6pq$1...@nntp.motzarella.org...
Office 2000 and XP both work great on Vista 64. I don't own any older
versions of Office anymore.
Ed
Dave
> In article <gl4gcc$eqo$1...@nntp.motzarella.org>, Dave says...
>
>> Cheese and Rice! I wish I was home right now so I could go through all
>> my
>> software and give you the exact versions. But I seem to recall that one
>> major problem I ran into was with Office 2007 (note: I'm referring to a
>> relatively recent MICROSOFT office suite). First, I don't remember the
>> exact version, so I believe that the program was Office 2007.
>
> Now you are talking bullshit.
No, I'm listing one example of software I would have had to spend money to
upgrade/replace, to run it on Vista 64. It runs fine on Vista 32,
hough. -Dave
Dave
> Office 2000 and XP both work great on Vista 64. I don't own any older
> versions of Office anymore.
>
>
> Ed
Hey, thanks for the pointer! I believe I've still got a (legal) copy of
Office 2000. I didn't think to try that on Vista 64, as I'd already
upgraded to a later version of Office. If I try to run Vista 64 again, I'll
just downgrade my office suite, now that I know what works.
But that is only one piece of software that I found was incompatible with
Vista 64. So it will be a while before I try Vista 64 again. As I
gradually upgrade software, I will pay attention to whether it is 64-bit
compatible or not. Eventually, I will have all 64-bit compatible software
without spending any extra money. -Dave
Conor
> No, I'm listing one example of software I would have had to spend money to
> upgrade/replace, to run it on Vista 64. It runs fine on Vista 32,
> hough. -Dave
It runs fine on Vista 64 as well or are you saying that Microsoft would
release a version of Office that wouldn't work on their commercial
versions of Windows?
Fuck, the more you post, the bigger the hole you dig yourself.
Conor
> Hey, thanks for the pointer! I believe I've still got a (legal) copy of
> Office 2000. I didn't think to try that on Vista 64, as I'd already
> upgraded to a later version of Office. If I try to run Vista 64 again, I'll
> just downgrade my office suite, now that I know what works.
>
Office 2003 and Office 2007 work on vista x64, dumb cunt.
> But that is only one piece of software that I found was incompatible with
> Vista 64. So it will be a while before I try Vista 64 again. As I
> gradually upgrade software, I will pay attention to whether it is 64-bit
> compatible or not. Eventually, I will have all 64-bit compatible software
> without spending any extra money. -Dave
Fuck, you're dumb.
Conor
> Hey, thanks for the pointer! I believe I've still got a (legal) copy of
> Office 2000. I didn't think to try that on Vista 64, as I'd already
> upgraded to a later version of Office. If I try to run Vista 64 again, I'll
> just downgrade my office suite, now that I know what works.
>
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_1yr_x64.asp
Dumb cunt.
Dave
>
Have you installed Office 2007 on Vista 64? I tried to, but it wasn't
compatible. -Dave
Dave
>
> It runs fine on Vista 64 as well or are you saying that Microsoft would
> release a version of Office that wouldn't work on their commercial
> versions of Windows?
>
>
> Fuck, the more you post, the bigger the hole you dig yourself.
>
Look, I actually TRIED to install Microsoft Office on Vista 64. It was a
recent version, which I believe was Office 2007. I know it was newer than
Office 2000, and I know it was not 64-bit compatible. -Dave
John E
>> Office 2003 and Office 2007 work on vista x64, dumb cunt.
>>
>
> Have you installed Office 2007 on Vista 64? I tried to, but it wasn't
> compatible. -Dave
I have installed Office 2007 (Home and Student version) on Vista x64, and
used it for the last year with no problems. It doesn't have Outlook, so I
installed that from Office 2003. They all work fine.
--
John
Conor
> > Office 2003 and Office 2007 work on vista x64, dumb cunt.
> >
>
> Have you installed Office 2007 on Vista 64?
Yes.
> I tried to, but it wasn't
> compatible. -Dave
>
Bullshit. I've even posted an article showing it.
VanguardLH
I'm sure most of write from our experiences. Not possible to include
the experiences of everyone else. From my experience, 64-bit Windows
troubles are, in order: drivers (need 64-bit versions to match the OS),
utility & security apps that embed into the OS (antivirus, antimalware,
sandboxes, virtual machines, etc.), install programs that don't include
the later versions of Windows (it's not that the program won't run but
that their setup.exe won't even let you do the install), and 16-bit
applications (including install programs for 32-bit apps).
I suspect MS, the original poster, really didn't want any answers since
he never came back to participate in his own thread.
Bryon Lape
news:6tmdplF...@mid.individual.net:
> In article <gl4v4q$per$1...@nntp.motzarella.org>, Dave says...
>
>> No, I'm listing one example of software I would have had to spend
>> money to upgrade/replace, to run it on Vista 64. It runs fine on
>> Vista 32, hough. -Dave
>
> It runs fine on Vista 64 as well or are you saying that Microsoft
> would release a version of Office that wouldn't work on their
> commercial versions of Windows?
Not surprising, the SQL Server Manager doesn't work on Vista (32 or 64)
unless you fetch the patch off their website. The install CD even detects
the unsupported OS.
Conor
> > It runs fine on Vista 64 as well or are you saying that Microsoft
> > would release a version of Office that wouldn't work on their
> > commercial versions of Windows?
>
> Not surprising, the SQL Server Manager doesn't work on Vista (32 or 64)
> unless you fetch the patch off their website. The install CD even detects
> the unsupported OS.
>
Not here. I've installed Office 2k7 Enterprise on both Vista and Win7
without any issues and it's worked perfectly.