Many 32 bit programs run in a limping mode in a 64 machine

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Ted, Jul 28, 2005.

  1. Ted

    Ted Guest

    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.
     
    Ted, Jul 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Ted

    Tim Guest

    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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Tim, Jul 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Ted

    Ted Guest

    >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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Ted, Jul 29, 2005
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 29, 2005
    #6
  7. 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 29, 2005
    #7
  8. 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.

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 29, 2005
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 29, 2005
    #9
  10. Ted

    Sean M Guest

    "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
     
    Sean M, Jul 29, 2005
    #10
  11. Ted

    Default User Guest

    Of course! Sorry. Yes Ted has an agenda of some sort.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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.

    >
    >
     
    Default User, Jul 30, 2005
    #11
  12. Ted

    Tim Guest

    I hear what you say. I wanted to avoid call up of Win16/32 thunking...
    A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then :) and one thing that
    has occured is that people put substantially more thought into progressing
    to new platforms - there is also substantial experience in the process. At
    the same time the abilities of programmers at all levels has increased
    enormously - what once was deemed a break through (thunking) is old hat,
    well understood, and with modern software coding and testing methods is
    likely to work 100%, 100% of the time.

    If you want to delve more closely into the Win16 thunk and things that
    occured then, you will start by firstly seeing that the host OS was
    substantially different to that prior - the addressing was only part of the
    change and a very large part of the difficulty lay in the fact that the new
    OS had substantial new other features and architectural differences. Win32s
    worked fine for me at the time for the limited amount of use I ever tried to
    make of it. At the time, anyone with sense did see that there was little
    point in carrying over old technology software - that fact that some people
    now days moan about loss of the 16 bit subsystem on x64 is mind boggling.
    This reflects one of the points of experience - you Must let go of old
    systems at some point. My favoured approach is to push for 100% native all
    the time as the effect of supporting old systems is that too many do not
    convert to the new as they are invited to procrastinate and so do.

    Ultimately though, the net effect now is that a 32bit program does run in
    native mode, that when it does call OS API's sooner or later the 32bit
    pointer used is translated into a 64 bit pointer.

    Apart from the many other adjustments - EG special registry keys and
    directories that are masked, the OS preserves the perspective for the 32bit
    application and the code unknowingly runs as native.

    - Tim


    "Sean M" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >
    > "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
    >
    >
     
    Tim, Jul 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Ted

    Ted Guest

    > Of course! Sorry. Yes Ted has an agenda of some sort.

    I am just very disappointed that 32 Apps don't run as promised.
    I was hoping a smooth transition to 64 Bit that would last
    about 6 to 10 years without loosing 32 bit applications full
    functionality.
    You can't compare 16/32 bit transition to 32/64 bit transition,
    billions of dollars and hours invested in Windows 32 bit, way much
    more than in the 16 bit days.
    Actually there was no good reason killing DOS, I need it and can't do
    without it at times.





    "Default User" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Of course! Sorry. Yes Ted has an agenda of some sort.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> 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.

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Ted, Jul 30, 2005
    #13
  14. Ted

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:17:39 -0800, "Ted" <> wrote:

    >I am just very disappointed that 32 Apps don't run as promised.
    >I was hoping a smooth transition to 64 Bit that would last
    >about 6 to 10 years without loosing 32 bit applications full
    >functionality.
    >You can't compare 16/32 bit transition to 32/64 bit transition,
    >billions of dollars and hours invested in Windows 32 bit, way much
    >more than in the 16 bit days.
    >Actually there was no good reason killing DOS, I need it and can't do
    >without it at times.


    It is good at some time to really cut the past. Nobody forces you to
    run a 64-bit machine at all and a 64-bit machine only. If 32-bit apps
    are of such a concern to you, why don't you keep running them
    specifically on a 32-bit machine? Pretty simple solution I think :)

    jud
     
    Jud Hendrix, Jul 30, 2005
    #14
  15. Ted wrote:
    > I am just very disappointed that 32 Apps don't run as promised.


    The ones that I have tested worked, but they were definitely a bit
    slower, not faster. And they did not work quite as well. Together with
    not having any 64bit application (not even announced), plus lots of
    driver issues, that made the case really easy for me.

    > I was hoping a smooth transition to 64 Bit that would last
    > about 6 to 10 years without loosing 32 bit applications full
    > functionality.


    I think that is very optimistic. MS is already doing the dual strategy
    for two Windows version, which is imho a novum. So you can still run
    Vista on 32bit, if you like. That is about as much as you can expect, as
    100% compatibility is not going to happen.

    > You can't compare 16/32 bit transition to 32/64 bit transition,


    "The problem with history is simple: the people that could learn from
    history are not interested in it."

    > billions of dollars and hours invested in Windows 32 bit, way much
    > more than in the 16 bit days.


    So? The transition problems are still very much the same.

    > Actually there was no good reason killing DOS, I need it and can't do
    > without it at times.


    I agree with this. One of the major problems with x64 is that it is
    missing the 16bit subsystem. It should have been perfectly possible to
    port it, or to run it in the 32bit subsystem.

    Thomas
     
    Thomas Steffen, Jul 30, 2005
    #15
  16. Ted

    Ted Guest

    > It is good at some time to really cut the past. Nobody forces you to
    > run a 64-bit machine at all and a 64-bit machine only.


    Microsoft is forcing itself through.

    >why don't you keep running them
    > specifically on a 32-bit machine?


    I will as long you pay me the money I put in the 32 BIT.
    Deal ?



    "Jud Hendrix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:17:39 -0800, "Ted" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I am just very disappointed that 32 Apps don't run as promised.
    >>I was hoping a smooth transition to 64 Bit that would last
    >>about 6 to 10 years without loosing 32 bit applications full
    >>functionality.
    >>You can't compare 16/32 bit transition to 32/64 bit transition,
    >>billions of dollars and hours invested in Windows 32 bit, way much
    >>more than in the 16 bit days.
    >>Actually there was no good reason killing DOS, I need it and can't do
    >>without it at times.

    >
    > It is good at some time to really cut the past. Nobody forces you to
    > run a 64-bit machine at all and a 64-bit machine only. If 32-bit apps
    > are of such a concern to you, why don't you keep running them
    > specifically on a 32-bit machine? Pretty simple solution I think :)
    >
    > jud
    >
     
    Ted, Jul 30, 2005
    #16
  17. Ted

    Ted Guest

    >> billions of dollars and hours invested in Windows 32 bit, way much
    >> more than in the 16 bit days.


    >So? The transition problems are still very much the same.


    I must disagree, it is not the same.
    In Win 95/98/Me, you were still able to run MS-DOS, or run
    DOS programs from Windows flawlessly.
    Example World Perfect 5.0, Lotus.
    DOS antivirus programs were more effective than any Windows
    antivirus in disinfecting a computer, and still is if you format drive
    with FAT32.
    We have seen much of the destructive viruses lately, viruses
    that are spread these days are teasers. Only DOS can cure
    a computer that is infected with a destructive virus, and
    be able to retrieve important data.

    In large letters MS is claiming that 32 bit applications can be ran
    OK in 64 bit machine, while in small letters there are that many
    exceptions and limitations.






    "Thomas Steffen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ted wrote:
    >> I am just very disappointed that 32 Apps don't run as promised.

    >
    > The ones that I have tested worked, but they were definitely a bit slower,
    > not faster. And they did not work quite as well. Together with not having
    > any 64bit application (not even announced), plus lots of driver issues,
    > that made the case really easy for me.
    >
    >> I was hoping a smooth transition to 64 Bit that would last
    >> about 6 to 10 years without loosing 32 bit applications full
    >> functionality.

    >
    > I think that is very optimistic. MS is already doing the dual strategy for
    > two Windows version, which is imho a novum. So you can still run Vista on
    > 32bit, if you like. That is about as much as you can expect, as 100%
    > compatibility is not going to happen.
    >
    >> You can't compare 16/32 bit transition to 32/64 bit transition,

    >
    > "The problem with history is simple: the people that could learn from
    > history are not interested in it."
    >
    >> billions of dollars and hours invested in Windows 32 bit, way much
    >> more than in the 16 bit days.

    >
    > So? The transition problems are still very much the same.
    >
    >> Actually there was no good reason killing DOS, I need it and can't do
    >> without it at times.

    >
    > I agree with this. One of the major problems with x64 is that it is
    > missing the 16bit subsystem. It should have been perfectly possible to
    > port it, or to run it in the 32bit subsystem.
    >
    > Thomas
     
    Ted, Jul 30, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peder

    w2k will not run 16 bit programs

    Peder, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    477
    M Mullen
    Dec 24, 2003
  2. English Patient
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,862
    Old Gringo
    Oct 4, 2004
  3. Southern Kiwi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    303
    Southern Kiwi
    Jan 29, 2007
  4. Mahesh Gothi

    how to run 32 bit java dll on 64 bit machine

    Mahesh Gothi, Nov 23, 2009, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,145
    Mahesh Gothi
    Nov 23, 2009
  5. Dan
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    8,286
    Lock_1
    Apr 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page