Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?
Windows x64 (both XP (which is really a themed Windows Server 2003, it's
from the same codebase) and Vista) have backwards compatibility with 32-bit
applications. However, there are some caveats. The two that are very
important to know are that:
a) You can NOT plug 32-bit drivers into the 64-bit kernel (the core of the
Windows OS). I'm not a programmer, so I can't give you specific indepth
reasons; I suspect there are some legitimate technical reasons and maybe
some stability reasons (or both). This limitation is partly why driver
support is so lacking (new drivers must be developed for x64 versions of
Windows). Thus, the problem so many of us have when migrating, finding the
damn drivers for our hardware, assuming they exist at all.
b) You can NOT "mix-and-match" between 32-bit and 64-bit binaries. For
example, you can't plug a 64-bit DLL into a 32-bit application. This is why,
for instance, Windows x64 has a 32-bit version of Internet Explorer and a
separate 64-bit version. You can't plug a 32-bit Flash plugin into a 64-bit
version of Internet Explorer. Hence, you're stuck using IE 32-bit for most
tasks, until plug-in developers bother to port their code to 64-bit. (This
very much applies to you vidmark)
As far as hardware support goes, I highly recommend, for a desktop machine,
building the system yourself piece by piece, if you have the expertise.
Vendor support for x64 is woeful in my experience, with many, many
manufacturers selling 64-bit "capable" machines, but without the 64-bit
driver support that is required. By building your machine piece by piece,
you can ensure that 64-bit drivers are available for each and every piece of
hardware to be installed in your system. It takes time, but you'll end up
with a machine that is fully 64-bit compatible, with associated drivers,
which you can continually update as the respective OEM of each hardware
component provides updated drivers.
As for Norton, it used to be great, it went downhill from when it was bought
up by Symantec. I'm not saying it can't detect virus's, it does that very
well. My complaint is the performance hit, whenever I've used Norton
products in recent years, the performance hit has been huge, and the
software is very intrusive. I like to keep my computers very streamlined,
and Norton doesn't really satisfy that criteria
Bottom Line: OEM's need to get their act together and start taking x64
support seriously. My view is that this isn't really a fault of Microsoft's.
They've developed the 64-bit OS, it's now up to developers to choose when
(if?) they are going to seriously support it.
"Bull" <Bull@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:73787436-49B6-4CD6-8367-B832C5D5ACCF@microsoft.com...
> Sorry I'm not as informed as you. I'm a reasonably well informed computer
> user but while things like this might be obvious to you, they aren't to
> me. I
> happened to have been involved in the design of 64 bit Intel processors,
> so I
> know that by and large there isn't any hardware reason that 32 bit
> programs
> can't run on 64 bit cores. This has more to do with the software
> architecture
> which is outside my expertise. So, I really don't know which applications
> may
> or may not run on 64 bit windows. I would have thought that windows 64
> could
> have been designed to detect 32 bit applications and run them in 32 bit
> compatibility mode. I know that the hardware supports this even if the
> software doesn't take advantage of it.
>
> I understand that device drivers are different and I didn't have a problem
> until I wanted to do wireless on this PC and discovered that Linksys still
> doesn't support XP64.
>
> Anyway, I'm simply stating that I made a mistake in buying Windows64. I
> admit that. I didn't do my homework. I foolishly anticipated that the
> industry would move in this direction. I also originally planned to run
> Linux
> and only recently reinstalled Windows.
>
> I could live without certain applications like Norton. But device driver
> support is still very spotty, which is a surprise after this much time.
>
> Finally, why the snarky comments about Norton? I've been a satisfied
> customer and it regularly tops reviews and catches things that the free
> products miss. I guess I could be equally snarky and make comments about
> the
> OS that makes such products necessary, but I won't.
>
> "ralish" wrote:
>
>> Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new
>> processor architecture, you should do your basic research.
>>
>> Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit
>> system.
>> It has components that plug into low-level system components (including
>> the
>> kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit
>> kernel.
>> Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS
>> 64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This
>> should
>> help to avoid unpleasant surprises.
>>
>> There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit
>> Windows,
>> and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I
>> use
>> McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,
>> however, it is not free.
>>
>> Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to
>> support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and
>> hardware
>> support. I agree with you.
>>
>> Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful
>> information,
>> and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able
>> to
>> do, and learn, something constructive.
>>
>> Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.
>> Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/
>>
>> vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from www.adobe.com on both
>> IE
>> 7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as
>> Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this
>> bothers
>> you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly
>> anticipating
>> 64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest
>> the
>> time and money to get it done.
>>
>>
>> "Bull" <Bull@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:<D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com>...
>> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
>> > point
>> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
>> > bit
>> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
>> >
>> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on
>> > XP
>> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake
>> > for
>> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and
>> > still
>> > be
>> > able to run 32 bit apps.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> "Bull" <Bull@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news
30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...
>> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
>> > point
>> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
>> > bit
>> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
>> >
>> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on
>> > XP
>> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake
>> > for
>> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and
>> > still
>> > be
>> > able to run 32 bit apps.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> 
