"Vista compatible" software often does not work right in Vista 64

I have spent quite a bit buying software advertised as "Vista compatible"
sto my new Vista 64 machine and find that several of the products
immediately crash or hang, or malfunction with messages about incompatible
drivers etc. When I complain to the vendors about their "Vista compatible"
software being incompatible with Vista 64, I get replies like: "We never
said it was. It's just compatible with Vista 32"

This has happerned so often, now that I think one should automatically
assume that products not explicitly declared as Vista 64 compatible is in
fact incompatible. Maybe Microsoft should withold their "Made forVista"
approval for products that won't work in both versions?
Trond Ruud

Is there a particular reason you are going with Vista 64? Most drivers are
not ready and limited software works with it. Better to stay with 32 if you
can.

"Trond Ruud" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have spent quite a bit buying software advertised as "Vista compatible"
>sto my new Vista 64 machine and find that several of the products
>immediately crash or hang, or malfunction with messages about incompatible
>drivers etc. When I complain to the vendors about their "Vista compatible"
>software being incompatible with Vista 64, I get replies like: "We never
>said it was. It's just compatible with Vista 32"
>
> This has happerned so often, now that I think one should automatically
> assume that products not explicitly declared as Vista 64 compatible is in
> fact incompatible. Maybe Microsoft should withold their "Made forVista"
> approval for products that won't work in both versions?
> Trond Ruud

Logic would tell me that if a product is not specifically stating that it is
Vista 64 bit compatible - it isn't!

Any software or hardware that has to install drivers needs 64 bit
compatibility for *any* 64 bit Windows operating system, whether it be
Windows XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.

It is the responsibility of the various software manufacturers to make this
clear.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

"Trond Ruud" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have spent quite a bit buying software advertised as "Vista compatible"
>sto my new Vista 64 machine and find that several of the products
>immediately crash or hang, or malfunction with messages about incompatible
>drivers etc. When I complain to the vendors about their "Vista compatible"
>software being incompatible with Vista 64, I get replies like: "We never
>said it was. It's just compatible with Vista 32"
>
> This has happerned so often, now that I think one should automatically
> assume that products not explicitly declared as Vista 64 compatible is in
> fact incompatible. Maybe Microsoft should withold their "Made forVista"
> approval for products that won't work in both versions?
> Trond Ruud

On Jul 26, 8:56 am, "Bill Yanaire" <b...@yanaire.com> wrote:
> Is there a particular reason you are going with Vista 64? Most drivers are
> not ready and limited software works with it. Better to stay with 32 if you
> can.

Can you define "limited" for me? I have Vista Ultimate x64 on my
laptop, and so far every app and game I have thrown at it has ran and
ran well. As for drivers, well, nVidia and ATI don't even bother
differentiating the version numbers for their drivers between 32 and
64-bit Vista. There are fully working drivers for everything in my
laptop.

> "Trond Ruud" <tror...@start.no> wrote in message
> >
> >I have spent quite a bit buying software advertised as "Vista compatible"
> >sto my new Vista 64 machine and find that several of the products
> >immediately crash or hang, or malfunction with messages about incompatible
> >drivers etc. When I complain to the vendors about their "Vista compatible"
> >software being incompatible with Vista 64, I get replies like: "We never
> >said it was. It's just compatible with Vista 32"

What exact programs are you referring to?

"Bill Yanaire" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Is there a particular reason you are going with Vista 64? Most drivers
> are not ready and limited software works with it. Better to stay with 32
> if you can.
>
You're obviously right, but a 32-bits OS cannot address all of the (4GB) RAM
on my machine, and I thought (hoped) that the software industry would soon
come over to the 64-bits architecture to catch new customers (they can after
all, just keep on selling their existing 32-bits software to people with
32-bits systems)
But the 64-bit conversion is obviously a lot slower than when the world went
from 16 to 32 bits, so in hindsight I should have stuck to Windows XP, since
this is not only a question of 32-bit compatibility, but also of Vista
compatibility.

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:uF%...
> Logic would tell me that if a product is not specifically stating that it
> is Vista 64 bit compatible - it isn't!
>
> Any software or hardware that has to install drivers needs 64 bit
> compatibility for *any* 64 bit Windows operating system, whether it be
> Windows XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
>
> It is the responsibility of the various software manufacturers to make
> this clear.

You could also say that since Vista is capible of running 32 bit programs
while in x64 mode then just about any software that's "certified" Vista
Compliant, should work.

Problem PC has always suffered from, no standards. I know we don't want to
turn the PC into a console (Thanks Games for Windows), but there are
advantages I guess to some of those standards.

Getting back to Tround,

It would help if you had listed what program you're trying to run, maybe
someone else has run the program sucessfully in x64.

In other words, post more info bud.

"Andy [Ex-MSFT]" <> wrote in message
news:5D5E65E3-6389-475C-8DF5-...
> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
> news:uF%...
>> Logic would tell me that if a product is not specifically stating that it
>> is Vista 64 bit compatible - it isn't!
>>
>> Any software or hardware that has to install drivers needs 64 bit
>> compatibility for *any* 64 bit Windows operating system, whether it be
>> Windows XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
>>
>> It is the responsibility of the various software manufacturers to make
>> this clear.
>
> You could also say that since Vista is capible of running 32 bit programs
> while in x64 mode then just about any software that's "certified" Vista
> Compliant, should work.
>
> Problem PC has always suffered from, no standards. I know we don't want to
> turn the PC into a console (Thanks Games for Windows), but there are
> advantages I guess to some of those standards.
>
> Getting back to Tround,
>
> It would help if you had listed what program you're trying to run, maybe
> someone else has run the program sucessfully in x64.
>
> In other words, post more info bud.
The latest problem application was Avanquest's SystemSuite 7 Professional:
http://www.shop.avanquest.com/usa/pr...S_SS7_homepage

which left this message in the Vista 64 event viewer after refusing to
start:

\??\T:\Programs\AVANQU~1\SYSTEM~1\Vsapint.sys has been blocked from loading
due to incompatibility with this system. Please contact your software vendor
for a compatible version of the driver.

A pity since that application offers a nice, bootable Windows restore/repair
utility when/if the machine fails to boot.

As can be seen in the product presentation link above, they write:
"Currently, the Windows VistaT ready version is available in Download
format, only. The Windows VistaT ready Box version should be available
soon." No mention of 32-bits only

Another was "Spyware Doctor" which is described as follows:
Platforms: Designed for Windows® VistaT, XP and 2000 No mention of 32-bits
only
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
This one just plain refused to install in Vista 64, but the vendor refunded
my money promptly, when I complained about the "Designed for Windows®
VistaT" part

And finally:
"RegCure Registry Cleaner"
which is advertised as:
Minimum System Requirements:
Windows 98SE, ME, 2000, XP and Vista ready No mention of 32-bits only
http://www.paretologic.com/products/regcure/index.aspx

There are more, but I haven't the time to go back and recapitulate all.
I have somtimes tried to use the Windows XP/SP2 compatible mode, but except
for in a few instances it didn't make any difference But many of my old
32-bit applications automatically install and run without problems, so I'm
puzzled why the above vendors couldn't make their programs work in 32-bit
mode also?

When it comes to system applications, if it doesn't explicity state 64-bits,
then assume it won't work fully. Same as if it doesn't explicity state
Vista (for older system apps that came out before Vista) then don't assume
it'll work.

"Trond Ruud" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Andy [Ex-MSFT]" <> wrote in message
> news:5D5E65E3-6389-475C-8DF5-...
>> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
>> news:uF%...
>>> Logic would tell me that if a product is not specifically stating that
>>> it is Vista 64 bit compatible - it isn't!
>>>
>>> Any software or hardware that has to install drivers needs 64 bit
>>> compatibility for *any* 64 bit Windows operating system, whether it be
>>> Windows XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
>>>
>>> It is the responsibility of the various software manufacturers to make
>>> this clear.
>>
>> You could also say that since Vista is capible of running 32 bit programs
>> while in x64 mode then just about any software that's "certified" Vista
>> Compliant, should work.
>>
>> Problem PC has always suffered from, no standards. I know we don't want
>> to turn the PC into a console (Thanks Games for Windows), but there are
>> advantages I guess to some of those standards.
>>
>> Getting back to Tround,
>>
>> It would help if you had listed what program you're trying to run, maybe
>> someone else has run the program sucessfully in x64.
>>
>> In other words, post more info bud.
> The latest problem application was Avanquest's SystemSuite 7 Professional:
> http://www.shop.avanquest.com/usa/pr...S_SS7_homepage
>
> which left this message in the Vista 64 event viewer after refusing to
> start:
>
> \??\T:\Programs\AVANQU~1\SYSTEM~1\Vsapint.sys has been blocked from
> loading due to incompatibility with this system. Please contact your
> software vendor for a compatible version of the driver.
>
> A pity since that application offers a nice, bootable Windows
> restore/repair utility when/if the machine fails to boot.
>
> As can be seen in the product presentation link above, they write:
> "Currently, the Windows VistaT ready version is available in Download
> format, only. The Windows VistaT ready Box version should be available
> soon." No mention of 32-bits only
>
> Another was "Spyware Doctor" which is described as follows:
> Platforms: Designed for Windows® VistaT, XP and 2000 No mention of 32-bits
> only
> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/
> This one just plain refused to install in Vista 64, but the vendor
> refunded my money promptly, when I complained about the "Designed for
> Windows® VistaT" part
>
> And finally:
> "RegCure Registry Cleaner"
> which is advertised as:
> Minimum System Requirements:
> Windows 98SE, ME, 2000, XP and Vista ready No mention of 32-bits only
> http://www.paretologic.com/products/regcure/index.aspx
>
> There are more, but I haven't the time to go back and recapitulate all.
> I have somtimes tried to use the Windows XP/SP2 compatible mode, but
> except for in a few instances it didn't make any difference But many of my
> old 32-bit applications automatically install and run without problems, so
> I'm puzzled why the above vendors couldn't make their programs work in
> 32-bit mode also?

In message <> "Trond Ruud"
<> wrote:

>But the 64-bit conversion is obviously a lot slower than when the world went
>from 16 to 32 bits, so in hindsight I should have stuck to Windows XP, since
>this is not only a question of 32-bit compatibility, but also of Vista
>compatibility.

Is it?

32-bit CPUs hit the markets in 1986, it wasn't until December of '93
when Windows 3.11 came out that there was any real 32-bit OS support on
the home user desktop (or NT 3.1 in July of '93). It wasn't until
Windows 95 when 32-bit really became available.

AMD brought out the current line of 64-bit processors in 2003, so
really, we're doing not too bad.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

On Jul 26, 9:32 am, "Trond Ruud" <tror...@start.no> wrote:
> But the 64-bit conversion is obviously a lot slower than when the world went
> from 16 to 32 bits, so in hindsight I should have stuck to Windows XP, since
> this is not only a question of 32-bit compatibility, but also of Vista
> compatibility.

Well first off there is Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition. I run
it on my main PC. It's visibly no different from 32-bit XP, but uses
64-bit drivers. XP64 has been out for about two years. Since it was
never a retail product and few OEMs actually carried it, market
penetration was very small and it never really had a chance to take
off. Still, there are a few apps made for XP64, including some
games. Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs very nice on it.
XP64 also has a very high level of backwards compatibility.

Secondly, Windows Server 2003 64-bit Edition has also been out for
about two years, and it's gotten considerably more acceptance due to
the OS better meeting the needs of the high-end PC server market. A
Win2K3-64 box with 32GB of RAM is a beautiful thing.

The reasons 64-bit Windows isn't taking off..

Well Microsoft is partially responsible. The way they hid XP64 from
the public is kinda sad, it would have been a great chance to get 64-
bit Windows off the ground with the general public. Not including the
64-bit install standard with everything beyond Vista Basic was also
kind of silly. Heck, many people including myself believe Vista
should have been 64-bit only, with no 32-bit client. I mean really,
what 32-bit CPU are you going to want to install Vista on that you
really have a need to?

The nay-sayers are the other problem. These are the people who don't
know 64-bit Windows, never used it (or made a half-assed attempt on
shoddy hardware), rely solely on what they read on Slashdot, and see
that an app or an oddball piece of hardware from 1999 doesn't work and
OMG 64-BIT SUXX YOU NEVER WANT TO USE IT EVAR BURN THE WITCH! These
compatiblity pains aren't new, we went through them with Win95, we
went through them with XP. Product makers release drivers/patches so
their stuff works with the new OS, or people buy something else. It's
easy as that. The other argument, "you don't need 64-bit" is equally
foolish. Since when do other people determine my needs? Do I own
this 64-bit CPU and all this memory and this huge hard drive and big
video card and widescreen flat panel because of "needs"? I *want*
what is cool and new, and 64-bit Windows is cool and new. The more
people use it, the more commonplace it will get, and someday 32-bit
won't matter anymore, just like 16-bit ceased to matter several years
ago.