Vista Home Premium: 32 bit version vs. 64 bit

I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I am
thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same platform,
since I would prefer to keep these two computers as look-alikes. Some
desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit version. I am told that
the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of RAM, whereas the 64-bit
version will read up to 4 GB (?).

If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
complications that I might run into when I attempt to run programs/exchange
data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs from an earlier century;
would they be adversely affected?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.

Gordon Biggar
Houston, Texas

Here's a summary:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765

Vista Home Premium X64 supports up to 16 GB of RAM.

A lot of 32 bit software runs under Vista X64, but you'd have to check every
piece of software that you need to run. (For example: Photoshop CS2 has
problems under Vista X64, but CS3 is supported. CS4 is the current version.)

16 bit software is not supported under Vista X64. I don't recall a specific
example, but I believe that some old 32 bit software uses 16 bit code in its
installer. The installer will not run, even though the code itself could, in
principle, run OK.

"Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I am
>thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same platform,
>since I would prefer to keep these two computers as look-alikes. Some
>desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit version. I am told that
>the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of RAM, whereas the 64-bit
>version will read up to 4 GB (?).
>
> If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
> complications that I might run into when I attempt to run
> programs/exchange data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs from
> an earlier century; would they be adversely affected?
>
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.
>
> Gordon Biggar
> Houston, Texas

Thanks for your inputs. Do you think that software manufacturers will be
forced to provide driver upgrades to make their products compatible with the
64-bit system? In fact, is Microsoft moving to replace its 32-bit product
with the 64?

GGB


"Bob Knowlden" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Here's a summary:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
>
> Vista Home Premium X64 supports up to 16 GB of RAM.
>
> A lot of 32 bit software runs under Vista X64, but you'd have to check
> every piece of software that you need to run. (For example: Photoshop CS2
> has problems under Vista X64, but CS3 is supported. CS4 is the current
> version.)
>
> 16 bit software is not supported under Vista X64. I don't recall a
> specific example, but I believe that some old 32 bit software uses 16 bit
> code in its installer. The installer will not run, even though the code
> itself could, in principle, run OK.
>
> "Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I
>>am thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same
>>platform, since I would prefer to keep these two computers as look-alikes.
>>Some desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit version. I am
>>told that the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of RAM, whereas the
>>64-bit version will read up to 4 GB (?).
>>
>> If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
>> complications that I might run into when I attempt to run
>> programs/exchange data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs
>> from an earlier century; would they be adversely affected?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.
>>
>> Gordon Biggar
>> Houston, Texas
>

It is hardware manufacturers that require providing 64 bit drivers for their
products. Software manufacturers do not need to rewrite their software from
32 bit to 64 bit unless there is a reason to do so, for example if their
application requires many G Bytes of ram.

For example Microsoft's next version of Visual Studio ( Visual Studio 2010)
does not come in a 64 bit version.

Spending effort now on getting the software to take advantage of multiple
cores may be a better pay off than converting an application to 64 bits.

32 bit Windows should be around for quite a few years yet.

If a 32 bit Windows application does not run on 64 bit Windows, it would
probably be in the software company's best interest to correct their code
and make it work with 64 bit (for increased sales).
One requirement for a Vista logo for a hardware manufacturer is to have both
32 and 64 bit driver support.

"Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
news:#wd$...
> Thanks for your inputs. Do you think that software manufacturers will be
> forced to provide driver upgrades to make their products compatible with
> the 64-bit system? In fact, is Microsoft moving to replace its 32-bit
> product with the 64?
>
> GGB
>
>
> "Bob Knowlden" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Here's a summary:
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
>>
>> Vista Home Premium X64 supports up to 16 GB of RAM.
>>
>> A lot of 32 bit software runs under Vista X64, but you'd have to check
>> every piece of software that you need to run. (For example: Photoshop CS2
>> has problems under Vista X64, but CS3 is supported. CS4 is the current
>> version.)
>>
>> 16 bit software is not supported under Vista X64. I don't recall a
>> specific example, but I believe that some old 32 bit software uses 16 bit
>> code in its installer. The installer will not run, even though the code
>> itself could, in principle, run OK.
>>
>> "Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I
>>>am thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same
>>>platform, since I would prefer to keep these two computers as
>>>look-alikes. Some desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit
>>>version. I am told that the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of
>>>RAM, whereas the 64-bit version will read up to 4 GB (?).
>>>
>>> If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
>>> complications that I might run into when I attempt to run
>>> programs/exchange data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs
>>> from an earlier century; would they be adversely affected?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.
>>>
>>> Gordon Biggar
>>> Houston, Texas
>>

Thanks for expressing your views. The last thing I want to do is to have
two computers that will only partially talk to each other.

GB



"Gary M" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It is hardware manufacturers that require providing 64 bit drivers for
> their products. Software manufacturers do not need to rewrite their
> software from 32 bit to 64 bit unless there is a reason to do so, for
> example if their application requires many G Bytes of ram.
>
> For example Microsoft's next version of Visual Studio ( Visual Studio
> 2010) does not come in a 64 bit version.
>
> Spending effort now on getting the software to take advantage of multiple
> cores may be a better pay off than converting an application to 64 bits.
>
> 32 bit Windows should be around for quite a few years yet.
>
> If a 32 bit Windows application does not run on 64 bit Windows, it would
> probably be in the software company's best interest to correct their code
> and make it work with 64 bit (for increased sales).
> One requirement for a Vista logo for a hardware manufacturer is to have
> both 32 and 64 bit driver support.
>
> "Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
> news:#wd$...
>> Thanks for your inputs. Do you think that software manufacturers will be
>> forced to provide driver upgrades to make their products compatible with
>> the 64-bit system? In fact, is Microsoft moving to replace its 32-bit
>> product with the 64?
>>
>> GGB
>>
>>
>> "Bob Knowlden" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Here's a summary:
>>>
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
>>>
>>> Vista Home Premium X64 supports up to 16 GB of RAM.
>>>
>>> A lot of 32 bit software runs under Vista X64, but you'd have to check
>>> every piece of software that you need to run. (For example: Photoshop
>>> CS2 has problems under Vista X64, but CS3 is supported. CS4 is the
>>> current version.)
>>>
>>> 16 bit software is not supported under Vista X64. I don't recall a
>>> specific example, but I believe that some old 32 bit software uses 16
>>> bit code in its installer. The installer will not run, even though the
>>> code itself could, in principle, run OK.
>>>
>>> "Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I
>>>>am thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same
>>>>platform, since I would prefer to keep these two computers as
>>>>look-alikes. Some desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit
>>>>version. I am told that the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of
>>>>RAM, whereas the 64-bit version will read up to 4 GB (?).
>>>>
>>>> If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
>>>> complications that I might run into when I attempt to run
>>>> programs/exchange data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs
>>>> from an earlier century; would they be adversely affected?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Gordon Biggar
>>>> Houston, Texas
>>>

Check your desktop chipset. Some can not handle 64 bit OS as far as extra
memory goes.

"Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have a laptop with the Vista Home Premium 32 bit version installed. I am
>thinking of upgrading my desktop from Windows 2000 to the same platform,
>since I would prefer to keep these two computers as look-alikes. Some
>desktops (e.g., Dell) are now sold with the 64 bit version. I am told that
>the 32-bit version will read up to only 3 GB of RAM, whereas the 64-bit
>version will read up to 4 GB (?).
>
> If I were to install the 64-bit version on my desktop, are there other
> complications that I might run into when I attempt to run
> programs/exchange data on both systems? I also run some DOS programs from
> an earlier century; would they be adversely affected?
>
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts on the subject.
>
> Gordon Biggar
> Houston, Texas

I waited until 64 bit drivers were available for all of my peripherals
(Brother and HP printers, an Epson scanner) before installing Vista.

The only software I've needed to upgrade was Photoshop CS2.

I haven't tried to run old DOS software. If I needed to do that, I might
consider installing Virtual PC. (I'm not sure which OS I'd run in the VM. It
could be DOS 6.22 through Win98.) Microsoft doesn't support it on Vista Home
Premium, but I've read that it will install and run on it. I have never
tried the DOS Box utility, which is mainly intended for old games.

You'd have to decide whether all that fooling around would be worthwhile. (I
might do it as a learning experience, on my own systems.)

"Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Thanks for expressing your views. The last thing I want to do is to have
> two computers that will only partially talk to each other.
>
> GB
>
>
>
(snip)

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:10:08 -0400, Bob Knowlden wrote:

> I haven't tried to run old DOS software. If I needed to do that, I might
> consider installing Virtual PC. (I'm not sure which OS I'd run in the VM. It
> could be DOS 6.22 through Win98.) Microsoft doesn't support it on Vista Home
> Premium, but I've read that it will install and run on it.

I have run Virtual PC on Vista Home Premium 64. It lacks USB support, so I
couldn't use it for the application I had in mind, but it otherwise was OK.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

I am running DOS programs on VISTA (32-bit) now. I simply type in the
address of a stored batch file in the START SEARCH field, and I am off and
running. However, someone indicated to me recently that I might not be able
to do that using the 64-bit version of Vista.


GGB



"Bob Knowlden" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> I waited until 64 bit drivers were available for all of my peripherals
> (Brother and HP printers, an Epson scanner) before installing Vista.
>
> The only software I've needed to upgrade was Photoshop CS2.
>
> I haven't tried to run old DOS software. If I needed to do that, I might
> consider installing Virtual PC. (I'm not sure which OS I'd run in the VM.
> It could be DOS 6.22 through Win98.) Microsoft doesn't support it on Vista
> Home Premium, but I've read that it will install and run on it. I have
> never tried the DOS Box utility, which is mainly intended for old games.
>
> You'd have to decide whether all that fooling around would be worthwhile.
> (I might do it as a learning experience, on my own systems.)
>
> "Gordon Biggar" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Thanks for expressing your views. The last thing I want to do is to have
>> two computers that will only partially talk to each other.
>>
>> GB
>>
>>
>>
> (snip)

"Gordon Biggar" <> wrote:

>I am running DOS programs on VISTA (32-bit) now. I simply type in the
>address of a stored batch file in the START SEARCH field, and I am off and
>running. However, someone indicated to me recently that I might not be able
>to do that using the 64-bit version of Vista.

If these are really DOS programs - 16-bit, real-mode programs - then
they will not run in 64-bit Vista. If they are 32-bit console
programs, then they will run in 32-bit Vista. Nearly all command-line
programs you might use these days are, in fact, 32-bit console
programs.

If the extension is *.com, then it's a DOS program and you're stuck. A
*.exe file can be anything - DOS, 16-bit Windows (which won't run on a
64-bit system either), 32-bit console or windows program, 64-bit
program. In Win98 you could use Quickview to tell whether it was 16 or
32 bits, but I don't know how you can tell now.

*.bat files will not be a problem - depending on what programs they
invoke.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt