Ask Slashdot: Best 32-Bit Windows System In 2012? 313
First time accepted submitter justthinkit writes "I have a number of applications that will not run on 64-bit Windows, but I would like to gain the benefits (most better caching) of having more than 4GB of RAM. Am I stuck with these Windows operating systems? And why is Windows Server 2008 Datacenter and Enterprise not included on that page? Should I go with a Linux or Win 7/8 system, and run a VM of Windows XP? Is this a solved problem or a lost cause?"
Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:5, Informative)
Or they have shoddy legacy code that checks for 64-bit systems and refuses to run on them in the same way that a lot of older websites still keep insisting that you upgrade to IE6 in order to view them in their full glory because someone did a != instead of a =
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:4, Informative)
<=, obviously
Re: (Score:3)
Hey you car has a flat tire you are going to go invent a new wheel.
{sarcasm} yes we should have to rewrite every program (from scratch) we ever encounter a problem with instead of looking for another solution because we all have unlimited time and no other things that need done{/sarcasim}
Re: (Score:2)
Hey you car has a flat tire you are going to go invent a new wheel.
Hey, don't be so quick to discard that line of thinking. That is -exactly- what led to innovations like this one [cnet.com].
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying your example could be refined.
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:5, Informative)
BTW wine can run 16-bit windows apps on 64-bit linux.
Re: (Score:3)
sizeof(int*) == 32
Probably not legal C, but close enough.
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it can't. I don't think you realize how archaic 16-bit mode is. 16-bit mode was for running on *286* Windows. If you had a 386 you ran in 32 bits.
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:5, Informative)
No, it can't. I don't think you realize how archaic 16-bit mode is. 16-bit mode was for running on *286* Windows. If you had a 386 you ran in 32 bits.
No, he's correct. You're talking about WoW32, he's talking about XP Mode. XP Mode is "Windows Virtual PC" and runs XP. 16 bit apps run fine in there.
They won't run in WoW, because the 16 bit support is a different subsystem in Windows, its not part of Win32.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, Windows 3.x could also run 32-bit apps. Windows 95 just replaced some of the 16-bit layer with 32-bit code, for example display drivers were still 16-bit.
NT was the first fully 32-bit Windows, and the biggest issue with Windows 95 programs is that many of them were 32-bit but used 16-bit installers; you can run them on 64-bit Windows 7, but you can't install them.
Re: (Score:3)
No, 3.x could not run 32bit Windows apps out of the box, after NT 3 shipped they did later backport a subset of the Win32 API to 3.x, this was called Win32s and it was a separate download.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no 32-bit Windows until NT and no consumer Windows was fully 32-bit until XP. Windows 95 introduced (some) 32-bit drivers and an interface that would allow you to run (some) 32-bit applications (a lot like DOS4GW did way better back then) but the underlying system was still MS-DOS.
The reason 8-bit and 16-bit (pure DOS and early Windows) applications are nigh impossible to run on 64-bit systems is because they request a switch to real mode from the CPU which means direct access to the full memory s
Re: (Score:2)
16-bit apps can run in protected mode as well as real mode, but there's no segmentation support in long mode, so 16-bit code can't run there.
Re: (Score:2)
Parts of the Windows 3.1 infrastructure may have been 16-bit, but it ran 32-bit apps. To find a version of Windows that did not support 32-bit apps, you have to go back to 286-mode Windows, as I said.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit surprised everyone is looking for a software solution when a simple hardware solution would probably meet the needs posed by this question. Specifically they were looking for the benefits of caching for disk access. Simply provide a server with higher capacity SSD's. In essence, you get the perks of having data 'cached' in memory without having to beat yourself up looking to cram a square peg in a round hole.
That will at least buy you some time to beat some sense into whoever is keeping this legac
Remember 16-bit games? (Score:2)
That will at least buy you some time to beat some sense into whoever is keeping this legacy software around that it's well beyond time to get it upgraded to something more current than a few decades old.
Sometimes legacy software has no still-maintained close substitute, and some sort of virtual machine is the answer. True, the OP probably isn't asking about games, but I'll still give an example of a 16-bit app that hasn't been upgraded: Is New Super Mario Bros. Wii for Wii an adequate substitute for an old 16-bit app like Super Mario World for Super NES?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you run it in "XP mode"?
Windows 3.1 Mode (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that isn't using Windows 7 XP mode as the parent suggested either.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you try it in Windows 7's XP mode, which actually starts a copy of XP in a virtual machine?
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:5, Informative)
Ahhh, I think I understand what you mean now. By "XP mode", you're in fact referring to this: http://windows.microsoft.com/is-IS/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode [microsoft.com]
When silly me was thinking of this: http://filext.com/images/vista_compatibility_mode.gif [filext.com]
Yes, the former will work for 16-bit applications. For those reading this thread, I should point out that "XP Mode" is not installed by default in Windows 7 or anything but it is a worthwhile addon if you run legacy apps.
Re: (Score:2)
The former *will not* work with 16 bit apps. I have an old file cataloger app (Catfish) & older versions of Microstation that I've tested this with.
It also requires any devices you use with it to have 64bit drivers as I discovered when trying to pull data off my old Palm Tungsten.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I take this back. Apparently my memory isn't what it used to be.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes it *will*. That's what it's for. It's Windows XP, running in Virtual PC, with added patches so you can run seamless apps, Citrix style.
If you are using hardware with your 64 bit OS, the yes, you will require 64 bit drivers for it.
The later, will not.
Re: (Score:2)
I clicked on the first link on your post and did a doubletake when it opened up. I had to double check the URL to make sure I hadn't inadvertantly found myself looking at a cheap Wordpress skin of some sort.
And the security certificate for the https version is wrong, so that made it even worse.
I finally typed windows.microsoft.com in manually to confirm that I was actually at the Microsoft Windows site and not some random Joe's blog on Windows.
That having been said, this add-on is news to me as well. I alwa
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:4, Informative)
this add-on is news to me as well. I always thought XP mode meant the compatibility mode. This is more like a XP VM on 7.
That's actually *exactly* what it is. It uses Microsoft's (now discontinued, but still available for Win7) Virtual PC virtualization software to run 32-bit XP in a hidden root window, and then uses the Remote Desktop protocol to forward the windows from XP to Win7 so that you can interact with them and they appear on your Win7 taskbar. Some additional integration takes care of things like adding apps to the Win7 Start Menu when they are installed in the Virtual XP machine.
You can also run the virtual XP machine as a normal VM, with a visible root window and all, if you choose to. This allows you to do things like install OS and software updates (automatic updates are enabled by default, but you may want to mess with that anyhow). Furthermore, you can forward USB ports from the Win7 host to the XP VM. This is great for things like using legacy hardware that doesn't work on Win7.
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering "XP Mode" in Windows 7 is a complete copy of XP running in VirtualPC, it's a perfectly reasonable (and accurate) claim to make. That was the whole point of XP mode, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I run old (Pascal) 16-bit applications in XP Mode (Virtual PC) under Windows 7 64-bit. It's the very reason I installed XP mode and it works perfectly.
If you have the source maybe you can recompile it using freepascal...
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I take this back. Just tried running Catfish again & it works fine. It was the Palm Pilot drivers that refused to work for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly any of the respondents did their homework either. They were all blabbing about you couldn't do it without a whole lot of trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would probably make Dosbox [dosbox.com] the simplest solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've scrolled down the page, and read a lot of good answers. With a little consideration, I have to agree with those who suggest, "It's time to upgrade your software!" As has already been pointed out, 16 bit software was on it's way out when the 386 processor came of the manufacturing lines. 16 bit software was carried by sneakernet on floppy drives - both 5 and 3 inch. 16 bit software predates Windows 3.1. Dump that shit, and pay some zit-faced intern to code something to do what you need. The intern
Re:Windows 7 compatibility mode (Score:5, Insightful)
For all you know he's got a 15 year old piece of industrial kit that needs 15 year old software to interface with it. Assembly line equipment maybe, oil drilling gear, CNC stuff, who the hell knows. A lot of this stuff is unsupported or the original vendor has vanished. Maybe this hardware still has years of life left in it, and the replacement value could be in the millions.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were married to consumer-grade Windows you had 16-bit apps until Windows XP came out, 32-bit was actually extra work and it would also run on the 16-bit subsystems in Windows NT without a hitch while compatibility between 32-bit on Windows 95-ME with NT/2000 was not guaranteed.
If on the other hand you would have developed with OS/2, various Unices, Solaris, VAX, BeOS or Linux in mind you would've gone 32-bit almost 3 decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Oftentimes, in industrial settings, a certain instrument has certain certifications. In order to make products that comply with various laws (like medical or automotive components), the materials have to meet certain standards. Legally, they only meed those standards if you can demonstrate that you are making measurements with certified instruments. Frequently it is the case that the instruments are only supported by a proprietary codebase, and the manufacturers do not have a functional app that runs on
Re: (Score:3)
You make some pretty good points there - but - I do have machinery and equipment at work such as you describe. Now, putting myself into the OP's shoes, if I were to come to slashdot, I would spell out what type of machinery I was running, and what was required to make that machinery run. Some of our machinery is over thirty years old, quite a lot of it over twenty. Most of our stuff runs on Linux. Machinery that is older than Linux is slowly being phased out - the last of it should be gone in another th
Re: (Score:2)
Compatibility mode doesn't always work. For example Kathrein's DVR manager requires a driver that does not run on 64bit.
Thankfully it works in a VM with 32bit XP.
Re: (Score:2)
compatibility mode is for different windows versions rather than architecture. I have a problem with a 32 bit app, i am sure it's not a 16 bit one and doesn't work on win 7 x64, but works fine on x32.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it doesn't work with his applications, for example.
Major applications, like older versions of MATLAB, won't run on anything after XP, even in compatibility mode.
(And this MATLAB code we licensed won't run on anything but the older versions of MATLAB.)
PAE-intolerant drivers (Score:2)
I would like to gain the benefits (most better caching) of having more than 4GB of RAM.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Just buy win7 32 bit version
The 32-bit version of Windows 7 won't use much more than 3 GB of RAM because too many 32-bit drivers for desktop PC hardware are intolerant of PAE.
Depends on the 3D (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
>Do you need 3D accelerated graphics? If not, VM is the way to go.
After ignoring the Windows 3D driver for VirtualBox, I installed it and ran Neverball, a 3D table-tilt ball game.
It worked fine.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
You would still want to vm the TS or RDS machines. Since you will have trouble finding drivers for such outdated operating systems.
4GB memory vs. 32-bit apps... (Score:4, Informative)
>> I have a number of applications that will not run on 64-bit Windows, but I would like...more than 4GB of RAM
Do you realize that many of your 32-bit applications would freak out in a 4GB memory space?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>> I have a number of applications that will not run on 64-bit Windows, but I would like...more than 4GB of RAM
Do you realize that many of your 32-bit applications would freak out in a 4GB memory space?
"...to gain the benefits (most better caching) of having...". That's the part you cut out, and it clearly points out one example of how the operating system can benefit from having more physical memory without having to assign it all to a single process. That's the way that virtual memory works -- The OS can have a huge pool of memory while each process only sees a small portion of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that many of your 32-bit applications would freak out in a 4GB memory space?
Precisely how? A 32-bit app, architecturally, is designed to access up to 4Gig of addressable Memory. This is the reason for 32 bits. If the application in question is "freaking out" then it's either not a true 32-bit application, or it's been written with heavy use of kludge.
Re: (Score:3)
Some Windows apps do stupid things and crash when they see a 'negative' memory address (i.e. > 2GB). But they're pretty rare these days since so many people run 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows.
SysWOW64 (Score:2)
I've gotten some cranky Win32 apps to work on Win7 64 by getting the 32-bit dll files in the C:\Windows\SysWOW64 folder instead of C:\Windows\System32.
The naming conventions don't make any damn sense; they should have kept System32 for 32-bit files and created System64 for 64-bit files. But that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading somewhere that System32 is called that for another reason (it isn't anything to do with the shift to 32bit windows back in the mid-90's). I can't for the life of me remember what that reason was, though. Nor can I remember where I read it.
It's entirely possible I just made that up, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd love to be reminded.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I think I've found a reasonable source that explains it:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff955767.aspx [microsoft.com]
So originally it was for 32bit DLLS, then Windows 95 went and ruined it anyway by putting 16 and 32bit stuff together (gj, microsoft). However these days the reason they do it is for .bat scripts that were hard coded to use System32 to do things like update the registry - the .bat would be running as a 64bit process but the hardcoded path to System32 would mean it would attempt to run a
Graphics problems (Score:2)
Use a VM for all older software. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about this critically: you probably want your operating system to be the master of its new hardware, and then you want it to interpret the needs of your older software.
If compatibility mode won't do it, set yourself up a VM and run everything in there. You can share a drive with the host OS and thus be nearly transparent.
It doesn't make sense to me to hobble the OS in order to run older software, when the newer OS is better with the newer hardware.
Your answers with as much detail as you provided. (Score:5, Funny)
1. Yes
2. Dunno
3. Yes
4. Yes
5.... errm yes?
Linux with some kind of compatibility layer (Score:2)
I would try running it under Linux with Wine. Windows may not be necessary if it's just for a couple of applications.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I've found that some old applications (especially games from around 1999), tend to work on wine, while they fail to run on Windows > XP.
They may be few, but it's worth a try.
What the OP (Score:2)
It's implied that they have userland software that for some reason won't work in 64 bit windows. The asker then goes on to suggest using 6 different OS's as well, as if their finicky software has no problem with linux or windows from XP to 8. Is the real question about PAE? I feel like we are missing something here.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect their problem is that they have 16 bit Windows code to run. 64 bit Windows can't run 16 bit code.
16 bit Windows code will work in 32 bit Windows (any version) or a 32 bit Windows running in a virtual machine on a 64 bit OS.
(Myself, I keep an old Win98 laptop around to run Quicken 6 on. Why? It's the only thing that can sync with the version of Pocket Quicken I have decades of checkbook data in. And it's 16 bit Windows 3.1 code.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Pocket Quicken's version has reset to 1 several times, each time PQ changed developers, it seems.
Mine is, obviously, very old. However, it still works well, which is the reason I use it. (I don't use desktop Quicken, really; I just synch to it to back up my PQ data.)
And desktop Quicken never seems to support a given Pocket Quicken very long. (The Pocket Quicken I have was sold for longer than a desktop Quicken that synchs with it. Gah.)
Windows memory limitations (Score:4, Informative)
First and foremost, all consumer 32-bit windows versions are licensed to top out at 4GB. If you want more than 4GB, you will have to buy a (reassuringly expensive) server edition that permits it. Done. End of story.
The only other alternative is to get a 64-bit version of Windows 7 Pro. The Professional (and up) versions of Windows include something called compatibility mode, which is a free copy of Windows XP 32-bit, running inside a virtual machine. That's probably going to be your most cost-effective way of running your legacy apps on top of a 64-bit machine with oodles of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention... if you go the virtual machine route, then there's no functional difference between what I stated, or using a Linux machine or a Mac and running VM software on top of that instead. There is a difference in cost, however, because you'll need to get VM software which may or may not be free, and you'll need to purchase a retail copy of Windows XP.
Re: (Score:3)
You're mostly right, and Rexdude is mostly wrong. All 32-bit versions of Windows support PAE. Among other things, PAE is required for the NX bit, which is used for Data Execute Prevention (since Windows XP). You can force-disable PAE in the bootloader, but by default it is enabled.
However, the client builds of Windows (as opposed to the server builds) limit the amount of addressable memory to 4GB nonetheless, even though PAE supports more. This restriction is not present in the server builds. The ostensible
Windows 7 32bit 4GB Kernel Hack (Score:2)
Not sure if this is of any use but the Windows 7 32bit Kernel can be hacked to properly support PAE and allow 64GB accessible memory under W7 32bit. W7 32bit was supposed include full PAE support but was nurfed at the last moment due to third party device drivers getting confused over the > 4GB memory space (I never had this issue).
A couple caveats come to mind:
# You have to patch the 32bit Kernel. Linky: http://superuser.com/a/95309 [superuser.com]
# Although you have access to >4GB of memory, no single process can u
See if you can upgrade or replace them (Score:3)
Seriously, it is real, real hard for me to find programs that don't run on 64-bit Windows these days. Windows has a flawless 32-bit user mode compatibility layer, so all 32-bit apps run no problem. The only cases that you have problems are:
1) Kernel mode stuff. There is no 32-bit kernel mode shit on 64-bit.
2) 16-bit programs. 64-bit Windows does have the 16-bit compatibility layer since there's no 16-bit mode you can access form long mode on the CPU.
3) Stupid programs that check the version and fail out, even though they'd actually run.
There just aren't many of those anymore. We use some amazingly fussy engineering programs at work, and they all run on 64-bit Windows these days.
So if your software really won't work, look and see if there's an update, or something else that'll do the job. If you just haven't tried it, then try it. Get a copy of 7 64-bit and see. I bet you have no problems. If you really have old 16-bit programs you need to run, do it in a VM, they can't benefit from modern system resources anyhow.
Extra memory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DESQview!
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
It was originally designed to give WinXP readyboost like capabilities. The latest version allows you to cache to what would be unused memory when running XP on a large machine. I don't know if it's any better than runnning an XP image on a giant Linux machine.
Connectix RAM Doubler (Score:2)
Your processes will essentially be paging to RAM disk, which seems silly, it but works.
That's exactly how RAM Doubler worked in the mid- to late 1990s. It reserved some of a machine's RAM for a RAM disk containing a compressed swap file.
Why is Server 2008 not on the PAE list? (Score:2)
Windows 7 x64 with XP Mode (Score:5, Informative)
This was briefly mentioned earlier, but I wanted to state clearly and concisely:
Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate all include licensing for Windows XP Mode [wikipedia.org], a 32-bit virtualized instance of Windows XP SP3. It is an additional download [microsoft.com] (actually a couple downloads), but it is free. I use it every day at work (on my 64-bit Win7 machine) to run a 16-bit app that was written in 1992, while I wait for that app's replacement to be written. It works perfectly, in fact much better than VirtualBox did for the same use case (there was laggy/odd redrawing issues with VirtualBox, no matter how many resources I allocated to the virtual machine).
Re: (Score:2)
^ THIS! ^
Ignore all the bullshit in the vast bulk of ignorant and wrong posts. This is an obvious and good solution.
Why not something else? (Score:2)
>VM of Windows XP?
No, not a VM of XP.
A VM of Windows FLP. It's like one of those pirated and trimmed back XPs, but official and not botnet ridden.
It boots in 8 seconds on this user's machine, so fast that in order to install the 3D drivers in VirtualBox, you must hand-edit boot.ini to put it in safe mode, since spamming the F8 key doesn't work.
It's. Fast.
And to every other program, like Photoshop and whatnot, it identifies itself as XP. I dare say that anyone pining away for the days of W2k, this is t
Nonsense (Score:2)
"I have a number of applications that will not run on 64-bit Windows" ...
There is *NO* difference between 32-bit environment applications see on 64-bit windows vs 32-bit windows.
You either have driver issues, compatibility mode issues or ancient 16-bit apps that only run under a 16-bit wow. Some older installers for 32-bit apps used a 16-bit setup.
List the Apps and/or *types* of apps ... (Score:2)
... then the community could give a better tailored solution for your needs. :-)
i.e. Why do you need more then 4 GB? Does one app need more then 4 GB?
Why not just run multiple VMs ?
Are your apps closed source?
Do you need DirectX / OpenGL support?
etc.
Re:VMs are not CPU emulators (Score:4, Insightful)
A VM can have a 32-bit OS installed.
Re:VMs are not CPU emulators (Score:5, Funny)
VM's can fake a 32bit cpu.... its almost like there isn't a real CPU and someone is just pretending or something...
Re: (Score:2)
It is beyond me why you would expect anyone here to have any experience with faking things.
Real mode to protected mode to long mode (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:VMs are not CPU emulators (Score:4, Interesting)
A 64bit CPU can have a 32bit OS installed. That's not the point. If the 64bit CPU is what causes his applications to fail (and not some software environment problem), then running the OS in a VM won't help because it doesn't change the CPU that the application will see. VMs are not CPU emulators. The code inside the VM runs on the host CPU.
No VM built for resource management convenience in a standard production environment is a CPU emulator, because that's horribly inefficient compared to doing passthrough. If you don't mind incurring substantial overhead, though, something like QEMU can do full emulation of an x86, ARM, MIPS, or SPARC CPU. Not at all fast, compared to passthrough(also supported with KVM or xen); but it can be done.
Re: (Score:3)
The guest CPU is the same as the host CPU on all popular VM solutions. If there is something in your applications that fails in the presence of a 64bit CPU, a VM isn't going to solve your problem.
I'm sure some thrifty assembly jockey writing vital-but-dreadful line of business applications in the 80s has a counterexample; but the mere presence of a 64bit CPU shouldn't cause any trouble for 16 bit applications. The issue is that MS dropped support for 16 bit applications on all 64-bit OS builds. A 32-bit OS on a CPU that supports 64 bits will run 16 bit applications without incident; but will only be able to use the first 4GB of address space without PAE, hence the poster's desire for a 32 bit OS wit
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm not an expert
No offense dude, but, you're not. This isn't going to address the issue. The problem here is running 16bit apps and mixed apps with 16bit code bundled in with them.
PAE is physical address extensions. This means that you get multiple "windows" of RAM which means that you get to switch your view on which window of RAM address space you get to see. This allows you to see above 4GB which still using 32bit address space.
This doesn't allow 32bit applications to see more than 4GB natively, it
Re: (Score:2)
If you had bothered to read the summary for comprehension, you would realize that the OP didn't give the slightest indication that he has any programs which individually need more than 2-3 GB. He's interested in a big system cache, which PAE would provide if Windows is architected even halfway intelligently (I know, big "if").
And no, this isn't even close to a "dark art".
Re: (Score:2)
A problem with both Server 2003 and XP is that they will be unsupported as of April 2014. If 32 bit Windows is still required in 2012, then my guess is it will be in 2014 as well. So if possible I would go with something more modern.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it is isolated from the Internet and you scan every data storage device (usb thumb drives, external harddrives ect) on a supported windows for viruses before you hook it up to the windows xp box you will be fine as long as you have hard-drive back ups in case of disaster. Hell we got rid of a windows 3.11 box running automation software less then 5 years ago at my work, and that was because of hardware failure (the mother board died due iirc to a problem with the power supply) it is now running o
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, Windows 7 32bit limits you to 4GB [microsoft.com] of ram for driver compatibility reasons. The last 32bit consumer OS from MS that actually supported greater than 4GB of ram was Windows XP SP1.
Re:You do realize you can run things in 32 bit mod (Score:5, Informative)
However you also have to deal with developers who's apps actually check what version you're running and won't even try to install.
It isn't much fun; but the Microsoft Application Compatibility Toolkit provides a mechanism for telling a large number of potentially useful lies to a program about the environment it is living in... Figuring out which ones you need is an exercise for the reader; but if you manage it you can then have the OS automatically furnish those little falsehoods every time the designated program runs.
It's a more powerful and granular version of the 'run in compatibility mode' feature, designed to keep the whiny enterprise customers happy.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are in house applications, change them to accommodate 64-bit operating systems.
Hehe, during the last 10 years we were twice able to convince the guys with the budget to spend some on a new version of the software.
Both times they forgot to communicate with 'the field' and came up with something totally unacceptable.
The original software was developed by a field engineer (Hi Q!), right there on the job and he was always looking for input by the users and clients, it's near perfect but new engineers do have to get their head around the 8.3 file naming convention :)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy applications you actually get the source code to ESPECIALLY if they're custom made or very geared towards your specific problem. So many applications you buy now are going to be fine in 32-bit or 64-bit environments but what if the industry decides to go more towards an ARM variant within the next 2 decades?
A LOT of companies are seeing the mistakes they made now by buying into custom-made solutions that they have no control over and over the years the company has either stopped supporting the solution
Re: (Score:2)
32 bit apps work fine. the problem is many 32 bit apps have 16 bit components, MS didn't include a 16 bit emulator in their 64 bit versions of windows.
and to avoid this problem in the future, MS won't give their "windows certified" logo out to any 64 bit apps that include 32 bit components.
It is a lost cause upgrade your app to 64 bit and move on. if you are really desperate run it in a VM, but then you are just delaying what really needs to be done. if it is a 3rd party vendor, dump them. (and yes i kn