32 bit app installtion in XP 64 bit

[Paul2660]

I have successfully installed XP 64 bit, and it's up and stable.
However no matter what I do, I can't seem to get any of my 32 bit apps to install.

I understand that 64 bit XP will not see a 16 bit installer, but it should work with a 32 bit msi installer.

So far CS2, will not even start to install for me.  I have tried to kick off the msi within the actual folder each time, but it just errors out.  I have also noticed that any CD with a 32 bit applicaiton will read very very slow on this machine.

Any ideas, help? would be greatly appreciated.

Paul C

[tived]

I have successfully installed XP 64 bit, and it's up and stable.
However no matter what I do, I can't seem to get any of my 32 bit apps to install.

I understand that 64 bit XP will not see a 16 bit installer, but it should work with a 32 bit msi installer.

So far CS2, will not even start to install for me.  I have tried to kick off the msi within the actual folder each time, but it just errors out.  I have also noticed that any CD with a 32 bit applicaiton will read very very slow on this machine.

Any ideas, help? would be greatly appreciated.

Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul,

I have had problems with my CS2 disk but then loaded it via the network and I was up and running. though i think it may have just been a cd/dvd drive problem. I am dreading everytime I have to do a system install these days it is getting harder and harder

regards

Henrik

[jecxz]

Have you downloaded the latest updates from Microsoft for XP64? I reverted back to 32bit but I was able to get things installed after I updated the OS. Good luck.

I have successfully installed XP 64 bit, and it's up and stable.
However no matter what I do, I can't seem to get any of my 32 bit apps to install.

I understand that 64 bit XP will not see a 16 bit installer, but it should work with a 32 bit msi installer.

So far CS2, will not even start to install for me.  I have tried to kick off the msi within the actual folder each time, but it just errors out.  I have also noticed that any CD with a 32 bit applicaiton will read very very slow on this machine.

Any ideas, help? would be greatly appreciated.

Paul C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[danag42]

Here's something to try:

Right click the installer icon, and go to Properties.  You'll see a tab called Compatability. Choose that tab, activate Compatability Mode, and set it to Windows XP.  Since you're in 64 bit Windows, I presume that it refers to 32 bit Windows.

[Paul2660]

Thanks all,

I had tried the compatability tab, actually thinkin that was it!.  From what I can tell, it just looks at a program and tells you where it will be loaded, i.e. 64 bit Program Files or the 32 bit program files  Program Files (x86)

After spending way too much time on this, I finally found out that I had a bad IDE cable. By replacing it, everthing worked great.

To answer the question I asked, 32 bit apps load seamlessly in 64 XP.  Installers all seem to run fine.  I loaded PS 7.0, CS2, Office and Sizefixer.  

Adobe has posted that you need to change to name from Program Files (x86) to
Progra~2.  Most applications don't like the (x86) Parenthises.  Amazing that Microsoft didn't test this, no actually not amazing.

I ended up using this Progra~2 for all apps I loaded.  
One other note, Adobe claims that CS2 will address 3GB of ram in 64 Bit XP, my system will only address 2.8GB.  XP sees all 4 GB of ram.  

Paul Caldwell

[jani]

Adobe has posted that you need to change to name from Program Files (x86) to
Progra~2.  Most applications don't like the (x86) Parenthises.  Amazing that Microsoft didn't test this, no actually not amazing.

Most applications are fine with parentheses in directory names. It's only programs that haven't gotten around to support VFAT or NTFS features, or the programming guidelines of 1995 and more recent times, that have problems with this. This is not Microsoft's fault.

"Progra~2" is a hint that the program hasn't developed from the DOS days.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

"Progra~2" is a hint that the program hasn't developed from the DOS days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That might not be too bad a thing. I still maintain that DOS 3.1 was Microsoft's last robust (i.e., ready for market) operating system, although I will admit that Win XP Pro is pretty much ready for beta testing.    

Eric

[jani]

That might not be too bad a thing. I still maintain that DOS 3.1 was Microsoft's last robust (i.e., ready for market) operating system, although I will admit that Win XP Pro is pretty much ready for beta testing.   

It's a bad thing, because old applications following the old Windows 16-bit APIs etc. is one of the major reasons why the same applications may have problems under Win XP.

Microsoft have been a bit too eager to both change their APIs while retaining a modicum of backward compatibility.

[marc.s]

Is there a big speed improvement running XP 64 on a 64bit cpu? Or is it mainly the increased memory access that's the reason for changing?

[Paul2660]

Marc,

It was more of a test to see for myself.  
My main goal was to try and get the max. amount of usable ram.  When working with 16 bit files, in CS2 or any previous version. I have found that the more ram, the better.  The processor being used doesn't seem to really matter that much.  

I know that the "offical" 64 bit OS from Microsoft is Vista. but I really don't think it will be out this year.  I have read that the upcoming new version of CS (3?) will be written to take advantage of more of the 64 bit api's and thus address more ram in general so I went ahead with the 64 bit XP.  

First impressions are that things run about the same, but you can control the address of all your ram, in my case 4GB.  So far the system is stable but I have yet to really stress it.  

32 bit windows on average will let you see 3.0 to 2.7GB of total ram depending on your board.  The answer I have always gotten in the past is that the other 1GB is reserved for the things like Vram, the PCI bus and other system needs.  My opinion is that XP just doesn't address ram very well once you get above around 3GB.  This is true with the 3GB swtich on also from my testing.

As for support all my XP Licences are OEM, so I don't get microsoft support anyway, and I have always learned more on the forums anyway.

My only other concern was the 64 bit driver support as you will find that can be very iffy at times depending on the card/board etc that you are using.

Paul Caldwell

[jecxz]

I know that the "offical" 64 bit OS from Microsoft is Vista.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you sure?

Vista is the next version of Windows and it will deployed to millions of computers without a 64bit processor.

Can you please provide a link? Thanks in advance.

[Paul2660]

Vista, which is the next XP from my understanding will be a "true" 64 bit application, however it will still work with 32 bit equipment.  Similar to how the current WOW application works in XP 64 bit now.  

I don't have a link, but every thing I have seen when talking about Vista is that it will be 64 bit.  Maybe MS will have both a 32 bit and 64 version, not sure.

Paul C.

[jani]

Vista, which is the next XP from my understanding will be a "true" 64 bit application, however it will still work with 32 bit equipment.  Similar to how the current WOW application works in XP 64 bit now. 

I don't have a link, but every thing I have seen when talking about Vista is that it will be 64 bit.  Maybe MS will have both a 32 bit and 64 version, not sure.

It is possible during installation time of an OS to determine what kind of CPU is in the computer, and thereby select whether to install a 64-bit-mode kernel or not, or if the OS is sufficiently advanced, maybe this can be determined at boot time (as in multi-stage boot).

In any case, there isn't any particularly good reason why Microsoft shouldn't be able to pull this off.