«

I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64 machine,
but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping mode, and some programs
will not even run.
I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to the
context menu if you are using a DLL.

This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the 32 bit.
I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time, before the
end user will start buying it.

Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
and handle 32 applications.
I was only worried about the hardware.

Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
System32.
WOW my b...
The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.

You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that runs 32bit
programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't limp. The efficiency
of the 64bit processor offsets a slight performance hit inherent in running
WOW64. Some programs actually run faster than on my 32bit boxes but most
run at the same speed. XP Pro x64 is a more stable platform than XP Pro x86
IMHO. If you read the threads in this ng you will see that the issue that
appears over and over is that manufacturers are behind in doing 64bit device
drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit programs that use a 32bit installer
will install and run normally unless a missing device driver is required.

WOW64 simply describes the emulator that enables Windows programs to run
unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is actually right. As
for System32, there is no way around that because software looks for that
specific folder.

Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications because it
is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case you are wondering.

"Ted" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64 machine,
> but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping mode, and some
> programs
> will not even run.
> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to the
> context menu if you are using a DLL.
>
> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the 32 bit.
> I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time, before the
> end user will start buying it.
>
> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
> and handle 32 applications.
> I was only worried about the hardware.
>
> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
> System32.
> WOW my b...
> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.
>
>
>
>

Then don't go 64. Simple. Tim is accurate, but if you are convinced
otherwise stay with 32bits. Its not going away for a while.

"Ted" <> wrote in message
news:uh%...
> >Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications because
> >it is true. It is particularly true of games
>
> We are not playing games over here.
> If MS wants to target game players only then this another story.
>
> I disagree very strongly that 32 run flawlessly in XP 64.
> They might seem to run OK, many features does not function.
> Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP.
> Microsoft has failed very hard on this one, don't convince
> me any different because I have been testing XP 64.
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that runs
>> 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't limp. The
>> efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight performance hit
>> inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually run faster than on my
>> 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed. XP Pro x64 is a more stable
>> platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you read the threads in this ng you
>> will see that the issue that appears over and over is that manufacturers
>> are behind in doing 64bit device drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit
>> programs that use a 32bit installer will install and run normally unless
>> a missing device driver is required.
>>
>> WOW64 simply describes the emulator that enables Windows programs to run
>> unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is actually right.
>> As for System32, there is no way around that because software looks for
>> that specific folder.
>>
>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications because
>> it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case you are
>> wondering.
>>
>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>>I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64 machine,
>>> but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping mode, and some
>>> programs
>>> will not even run.
>>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to the
>>> context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>>
>>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the 32 bit.
>>> I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time, before the
>>> end user will start buying it.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>>> and handle 32 applications.
>>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>>
>>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>>> System32.
>>> WOW my b...
>>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

One point that seems to be getting lost in the blender is that 32bit code is
100% native on a 64bit AMD systems.

IE a 32bit program that is compiled for the x86 instruction set runs every
one of those instructions natively in the processor - there is no emulation
of 32bit code by 64bit code or anything resembling what occurs on Itanium
chips.

What *does* require to happen is that since the OS itself is 64bit in a
64bit address space with 64bit pointers to all the API's that it provides, a
THUNK for 32bit calls from applications INTO the operating system needs to
occur - that is my understanding of what WOW64 does - please correct me if I
am wrong & please no nit picking.

If the OP doubts this and the effectiveness of this, then I suggest the OP
sit down and attempt to design a system for allowing a 64bit OS running on
64bit hardware that includes the 32bit instruction set to run 32bit software
that has come from a 32bit OS. If the OP did an extremely good job that
resulted in no measurable degradation of performance or facility then they
are likely to have designed WOW64.

The OP states: "Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP." I suggest the OP
investigates how these DLL's are being installed, if dependancies are being
installed, their worthiness for deployment on 32bit systems, and check that
they are not device drivers or components of device drivers and report back.

- Tim






"Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that runs
> 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't limp. The
> efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight performance hit
> inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually run faster than on my
> 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed. XP Pro x64 is a more stable
> platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you read the threads in this ng you
> will see that the issue that appears over and over is that manufacturers
> are behind in doing 64bit device drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit
> programs that use a 32bit installer will install and run normally unless a
> missing device driver is required.
>
> WOW64 simply describes the emulator that enables Windows programs to run
> unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is actually right.
> As for System32, there is no way around that because software looks for
> that specific folder.
>
> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications because
> it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case you are
> wondering.
>
> "Ted" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>>I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64 machine,
>> but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping mode, and some
>> programs
>> will not even run.
>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to the
>> context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>
>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the 32 bit.
>> I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time, before the
>> end user will start buying it.
>>
>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>> and handle 32 applications.
>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>
>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>> System32.
>> WOW my b...
>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications because
>it is true. It is particularly true of games

We are not playing games over here.
If MS wants to target game players only then this another story.

I disagree very strongly that 32 run flawlessly in XP 64.
They might seem to run OK, many features does not function.
Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP.
Microsoft has failed very hard on this one, don't convince
me any different because I have been testing XP 64.


"Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that runs
> 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't limp. The
> efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight performance hit
> inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually run faster than on my
> 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed. XP Pro x64 is a more stable
> platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you read the threads in this ng you
> will see that the issue that appears over and over is that manufacturers
> are behind in doing 64bit device drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit
> programs that use a 32bit installer will install and run normally unless a
> missing device driver is required.
>
> WOW64 simply describes the emulator that enables Windows programs to run
> unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is actually right.
> As for System32, there is no way around that because software looks for
> that specific folder.
>
> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications because
> it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case you are
> wondering.
>
> "Ted" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>>I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64 machine,
>> but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping mode, and some
>> programs
>> will not even run.
>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to the
>> context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>
>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the 32 bit.
>> I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time, before the
>> end user will start buying it.
>>
>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>> and handle 32 applications.
>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>
>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>> System32.
>> WOW my b...
>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

you are just wrong. And now filtered.

For the last time (and I have said this many times before here) -- 32-bit
applications can call 32-bit dlls. 64-bit applications can call 64-bit dlls.
64-bit applications CAN NOT CALL 32-bit dlls. DUH. and 32-bit applications
can't call 64-bit DLLs. Duh again.

Windows Explorer is a 64-bit application. So it can't call the 32-bit addon
dlls that some programs use. There IS a workaround, if you actually read
what's been said here -- run a 32-bit version of Windows Explorer alongside
the 64-bit version. To run the 32-bit Explorer in x64 Edition, create a link
to:
%windir%\SysWOW64\Explorer.exe /separate

and stick it on your desktop. Now, double click that link when you want a
32-bit version of Windows Explorer. Your Winzip right menu stuff, and all the
other applications that do that sort of thing will be right where you expect
them. But always remember that your view of the file system is skewed in that
window.


--
Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
======================
Charlie.
http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


Ted wrote:
>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games
>
> We are not playing games over here.
> If MS wants to target game players only then this another story.
>
> I disagree very strongly that 32 run flawlessly in XP 64.
> They might seem to run OK, many features does not function.
> Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP.
> Microsoft has failed very hard on this one, don't convince
> me any different because I have been testing XP 64.
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that runs
>> 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't limp. The
>> efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight performance hit
>> inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually run faster than
>> on my 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed. XP Pro x64 is a
>> more stable platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you read the threads
>> in this ng you will see that the issue that appears over and over is
>> that manufacturers are behind in doing 64bit device drivers. As far
>> as I can tell all 32bit programs that use a 32bit installer will
>> install and run normally unless a missing device driver is required.
>>
>> WOW64 simply describes the emulator that enables Windows programs to
>> run unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is actually
>> right. As for System32, there is no way around that because software
>> looks for that specific folder.
>>
>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case
>> you are wondering.
>>
>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64
>>> machine, but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping mode,
>>> and some programs
>>> will not even run.
>>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to the
>>> context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>>
>>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the 32
>>> bit. I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time,
>>> before the end user will start buying it.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>>> and handle 32 applications.
>>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>>
>>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>>> System32.
>>> WOW my b...
>>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.

troll

--
Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
======================
Charlie.
http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Then don't go 64. Simple. Tim is accurate, but if you are convinced
> otherwise stay with 32bits. Its not going away for a while.
>
> "Ted" <> wrote in message
> news:uh%...
>>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games
>>
>> We are not playing games over here.
>> If MS wants to target game players only then this another story.
>>
>> I disagree very strongly that 32 run flawlessly in XP 64.
>> They might seem to run OK, many features does not function.
>> Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP.
>> Microsoft has failed very hard on this one, don't convince
>> me any different because I have been testing XP 64.
>>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that
>>> runs 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't
>>> limp. The efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight
>>> performance hit inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually
>>> run faster than on my 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed. XP Pro
>>> x64 is a more stable platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you
>>> read the threads in this ng you will see that the issue that
>>> appears over and over is that manufacturers are behind in doing
>>> 64bit device drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit programs that
>>> use a 32bit installer will install and run normally unless a
>>> missing device driver is required. WOW64 simply describes the emulator
>>> that enables Windows programs
>>> to run unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is
>>> actually right. As for System32, there is no way around that
>>> because software looks for that specific folder.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case
>>> you are wondering.
>>>
>>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>>> news:%...
>>>> I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64
>>>> machine, but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping
>>>> mode, and some programs
>>>> will not even run.
>>>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to
>>>> the context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>>>
>>>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>>>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the
>>>> 32 bit. I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time,
>>>> before the end user will start buying it.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>>>> and handle 32 applications.
>>>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>>>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>>>> System32.
>>>> WOW my b...
>>>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.

me?

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> troll
>
> --
> Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
> ======================
> Charlie.
> http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
>
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Then don't go 64. Simple. Tim is accurate, but if you are convinced
>> otherwise stay with 32bits. Its not going away for a while.
>>
>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>> news:uh%...
>>>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>>>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games
>>>
>>> We are not playing games over here.
>>> If MS wants to target game players only then this another story.
>>>
>>> I disagree very strongly that 32 run flawlessly in XP 64.
>>> They might seem to run OK, many features does not function.
>>> Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP.
>>> Microsoft has failed very hard on this one, don't convince
>>> me any different because I have been testing XP 64.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that
>>>> runs 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't
>>>> limp. The efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight
>>>> performance hit inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually
>>>> run faster than on my 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed. XP
>>>> Pro x64 is a more stable platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you
>>>> read the threads in this ng you will see that the issue that
>>>> appears over and over is that manufacturers are behind in doing
>>>> 64bit device drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit programs that
>>>> use a 32bit installer will install and run normally unless a
>>>> missing device driver is required. WOW64 simply describes the emulator
>>>> that enables Windows programs
>>>> to run unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is
>>>> actually right. As for System32, there is no way around that
>>>> because software looks for that specific folder.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>>>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in case
>>>> you are wondering.
>>>>
>>>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:%...
>>>>> I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64
>>>>> machine, but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping
>>>>> mode, and some programs
>>>>> will not even run.
>>>>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to
>>>>> the context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>>>>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the
>>>>> 32 bit. I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long time,
>>>>> before the end user will start buying it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>>>>> and handle 32 applications.
>>>>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>>>>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>>>>> System32.
>>>>> WOW my b...
>>>>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.
>
>

NO!
Ted.

--
Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
======================
Charlie.
http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> me?
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
> message news:...
>> troll
>>
>> --
>> Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
>> ======================
>> Charlie.
>> http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
>>
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> Then don't go 64. Simple. Tim is accurate, but if you are
>>> convinced otherwise stay with 32bits. Its not going away for a
>>> while. "Ted" <> wrote in message
>>> news:uh%...
>>>>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>>>>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games
>>>>
>>>> We are not playing games over here.
>>>> If MS wants to target game players only then this another story.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree very strongly that 32 run flawlessly in XP 64.
>>>> They might seem to run OK, many features does not function.
>>>> Many 32 bit DLLs don't work with XP.
>>>> Microsoft has failed very hard on this one, don't convince
>>>> me any different because I have been testing XP 64.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> You are confusing many snippets of information. The method that
>>>>> runs 32bit programs is called Windows on Windows64. It doesn't
>>>>> limp. The efficiency of the 64bit processor offsets a slight
>>>>> performance hit inherent in running WOW64. Some programs actually
>>>>> run faster than on my 32bit boxes but most run at the same speed.
>>>>> XP Pro x64 is a more stable platform than XP Pro x86 IMHO. If you
>>>>> read the threads in this ng you will see that the issue that
>>>>> appears over and over is that manufacturers are behind in doing
>>>>> 64bit device drivers. As far as I can tell all 32bit programs
>>>>> that use a 32bit installer will install and run normally unless a
>>>>> missing device driver is required. WOW64 simply describes the
>>>>> emulator that enables Windows programs
>>>>> to run unchanged in the Windows 64bit environment; the name is
>>>>> actually right. As for System32, there is no way around that
>>>>> because software looks for that specific folder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft has every right to claim that x64 runs x86 applications
>>>>> because it is true. It is particularly true of games, just in
>>>>> case you are wondering.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%...
>>>>>> I thought MS was going to make 32 applications run OK in the 64
>>>>>> machine, but I see that they are going to be ran in a limping
>>>>>> mode, and some programs
>>>>>> will not even run.
>>>>>> I just found out that you can't add a 32 bit application menu to
>>>>>> the context menu if you are using a DLL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will change the whole picture for Windows 64 bit sales,
>>>>>> I think its going to take very long time for it to take over the
>>>>>> 32 bit. I think 64 bit sales will be limping for a very long
>>>>>> time, before the end user will start buying it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft has no right claiming that 64 bit Windows can run
>>>>>> and handle 32 applications.
>>>>>> I was only worried about the hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also its very confusing naming the System32 directory System32
>>>>>> while it should be System64. And the SysWow64 should be named
>>>>>> System32.
>>>>>> WOW my b...
>>>>>> The name WOW belongs to CompuServe anyway.

"Tim" <> wrote in message news:dccjjd$h4v$...
[...snip...]
> What *does* require to happen is that since the OS itself is 64bit in a
> 64bit address space with 64bit pointers to all the API's that it provides,
a
> THUNK for 32bit calls from applications INTO the operating system needs to
> occur - that is my understanding of what WOW64 does - please correct me if
I
> am wrong & please no nit picking.

Users and developers who were around in the age of the
dinosaurs^W^W^W^Wdays of the Win16/32 crossover will remember about the
"thunking layer" that allowed limited interop between 16- and 32-bit
processes. Remembering the associated grief of developing for this model,
Microsoft opted to not include a thunking layer for the 32/64 era.

DLLs that run in Explorer -- such as those that attach items to the
context menus -- are running within the *64-bit* Explorer process, and thus
are *required* by design to support 64-bit memory addressing.

-- Sean M