Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?amFtaWVjY2Nw?=, Aug 20, 2005.

  1. Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?

    Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?

    If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process 64bit
    code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true then
    how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.

    Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    becomes backward compatible?
    =?Utf-8?B?amFtaWVjY2Nw?=, Aug 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jamiecccp wrote:
    > Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >
    > Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >
    > If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process 64bit
    > code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true then
    > how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >
    > Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    > becomes backward compatible?


    It's not the chip. As new operating systems evolve e.g. from 16 bit to
    32 bit to 64 bit, at some point you just have to drop the 16 bit apps.
    You could install DOS and or DOS and Windows 3.1 on your machine if you
    wanted to but what's the point? I have a couple of old 486's sitting in
    my closet if I needed to do that. It's evolution; Simple as that.

    Cheers,

    --
    Steve Thompson
    Online 64 .NET | http://www.online64.net
    Steve Thompson, Aug 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. It _is_ backwards compatible. What aren't compatible are drivers. System
    level drivers must be 64-bit. That won't change. As for 16 bit code? That
    would require support in the OS, which I suppose would have been technically
    possible, but would have caused all sorts of other issues. MS made a
    decision (and a very sound technical decision in my personal opinion) that
    they would not provide an emulation layer that allowed 16 bit programs to
    run. 32-bit programs run just fine, in my experience. As do 64-bit ones,
    obviously.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    jamiecccp wrote:
    > Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >
    > Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >
    > If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    > 64bit code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is
    > true then how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >
    > Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    > becomes backward compatible?
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 20, 2005
    #3
  4. It seems to be backwards compatible for everything except for device drivers.
    All my software (Adobe, SLRN, Macromedia stuff) works.

    Device drivers are not likely to be compatible because the address range is
    so different - 32 bits versus 64 bits. The device drivers MUST be able to
    support 64 bits in case some application program written for a sixty four bit
    machine asks for that much data.

    In other words, a 64 bit driver can support a 32 bit application, but a 32
    bit driver can't support a 64 bit application.

    "jamiecccp" wrote:

    > Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >
    > Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >
    > If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process 64bit
    > code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true then
    > how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >
    > Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    > becomes backward compatible?
    =?Utf-8?B?RWQgQ2xhcmtl?=, Aug 20, 2005
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?amFtaWVjY2Nw?=

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:04:01 -0700, jamiecccp
    <> wrote:

    >Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    >becomes backward compatible?


    Please, let backward compatibility die, right here, right now.

    jud
    Jud Hendrix, Aug 20, 2005
    #5
  6. There is always VMWare if you need to run those 16 bit apps on a native OS.
    ;)
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "jamiecccp" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >
    > Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >
    > If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    > 64bit
    > code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true
    > then
    > how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >
    > Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    > becomes backward compatible?
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Aug 20, 2005
    #6
  7. When Virtual PC is 64-bit compatible you can run 16-bit operating systems
    that way. Virtual Server 2005 SP1 beta is already doing it.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It _is_ backwards compatible. What aren't compatible are drivers. System
    > level drivers must be 64-bit. That won't change. As for 16 bit code? That
    > would require support in the OS, which I suppose would have been
    > technically possible, but would have caused all sorts of other issues. MS
    > made a decision (and a very sound technical decision in my personal
    > opinion) that they would not provide an emulation layer that allowed 16
    > bit programs to run. 32-bit programs run just fine, in my experience. As
    > do 64-bit ones, obviously.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > jamiecccp wrote:
    >> Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >>
    >> Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >>
    >> If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    >> 64bit code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is
    >> true then how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >>
    >> Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    >> becomes backward compatible?

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst MVP, Aug 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Virtual Server 2005 SP1 beta is already doing it too.

    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > There is always VMWare if you need to run those 16 bit apps on a native
    > OS. ;)
    > --
    > Andre
    > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    > FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >
    > "jamiecccp" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >>
    >> Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >>
    >> If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    >> 64bit
    >> code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true
    >> then
    >> how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >>
    >> Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    >> becomes backward compatible?

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst MVP, Aug 20, 2005
    #8
  9. But its beta.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    "Colin Barnhorst MVP" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Virtual Server 2005 SP1 beta is already doing it too.
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> There is always VMWare if you need to run those 16 bit apps on a native
    >> OS. ;)
    >> --
    >> Andre
    >> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >>
    >> "jamiecccp" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >>>
    >>> Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >>>
    >>> If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    >>> 64bit
    >>> code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true
    >>> then
    >>> how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >>>
    >>> Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    >>> becomes backward compatible?

    >>
    >>

    >
    Andre Da Costa, Aug 21, 2005
    #9
  10. To my mind, that's not really a solution. Since you are running them in a
    different "machine", you have all the issues associated with that. Plus
    Virtual PC support for x64 is still quite a ways away, and the going price
    for Virftual Server is non-trivial.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Colin Barnhorst MVP wrote:
    > When Virtual PC is 64-bit compatible you can run 16-bit operating systems
    > that way. Virtual Server 2005 SP1 beta is already doing it.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> It _is_ backwards compatible. What aren't compatible are drivers. System
    >> level drivers must be 64-bit. That won't change. As for 16 bit code? That
    >> would require support in the OS, which I suppose would have been
    >> technically possible, but would have caused all sorts of other issues. MS
    >> made a decision (and a very sound technical decision in my personal
    >> opinion) that they would not provide an emulation layer that allowed 16
    >> bit programs to run. 32-bit programs run just fine, in my experience. As
    >> do 64-bit ones, obviously.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> jamiecccp wrote:
    >>> Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >>>
    >>> Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >>>
    >>> If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    >>> 64bit code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is
    >>> true then how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code
    >>> simultaneously. Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until
    >>> Windows 64bit
    >>> becomes backward compatible?
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 21, 2005
    #10
  11. And when it stops being beta, the licensing cost will be non-trivial.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Andre Da Costa wrote:
    > But its beta.
    >> Virtual Server 2005 SP1 beta is already doing it too.
    >>
    >> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> There is always VMWare if you need to run those 16 bit apps on a native
    >>> OS. ;)
    >>> --
    >>> Andre
    >>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >>>
    >>> "jamiecccp" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Why Isnt Windows 64bit Backwards Compatible?
    >>>>
    >>>> Is it due to software issues or chip architecture?
    >>>>
    >>>> If its chip architecture i'm assuming that AMD 939 chips cant process
    >>>> 64bit
    >>>> code simultaneously with 16 and 32 bit. My question is if this is true
    >>>> then
    >>>> how do chips made by Intel and AMD process code simultaneously.
    >>>>
    >>>> Also if its a software issue, how long will it be until Windows 64bit
    >>>> becomes backward compatible?
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 21, 2005
    #11
  12. thanks just wondering as i was planning to test out the trial version of x64
    =?Utf-8?B?amFtaWVjY2Nw?=, Aug 22, 2005
    #12
    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. firemarsh
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    440
    firemarsh
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    If it isnt SLR, it isnt photography, but picture taking!

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    872
  3. Metlhd3138

    Why isnt Jumpin Jack Flash on dvd?

    Metlhd3138, Oct 26, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Metlhd3138
    Oct 26, 2003
  4. Juan Jansen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,395
    Ryan Hoffman [Extended64.com]
    May 20, 2005
  5. ng_reader

    240 Pin 5300 not backwards compatible to 4200?

    ng_reader, Feb 28, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,308
    ng_reader
    Mar 7, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page