installing 32bit apps in xp 64

[CHDA80]

most of the programs i have after my format that are 32 bit just give me a warning. but i have a few that refuse to install. is there any tricks i should know to get these remaining programs to install?

[DeaconFrost]

What are some of these programs? You shouldn't have any issues with 32 bit applications, unless they are system utility type applications.

[Martyr]

i know i cant install my old monopoly game, give me the installer error no matter the compatibility settings.

[heelix]

One of the things I do is specify the location...

d:\games\...

rather than c:\Program Files (x86)

I've found some stuff that had issues with parenthesis in the directory name.

[CHDA80]

one of the programs im trying to make work is adobe type manager http://www.adobe.com/products/atmlight/index.html i do graphic design and i would rather not have photoshop load all 5,000 fonts at once. it worked fine on my x86 xp install but it wont even run the setup for me now

[Scali2]

Some 32-bit software comes with 16-bit installers.
The software can run, but the installer cannot. In such a case, you should use some kind of extraction/decompilation tool and extract the contents of the installer manually.

[LhasaCM]

i know i cant install my old monopoly game, give me the installer error no matter the compatibility settings.

Most likely, the problem there is that the InstallShield (or equivalent) program is only 16-bit. While XP or Vista x64 can run 32-bit executables (via an emulator, basically), they cannot run 16-bit executables.

[Vashypooh]

You might try running a VMware to install the programs you want, and copy the .reg and files over to x64, like they said a lot of crap uses 16bit installers for some reason but is 32bit.

[LhasaCM]

You might try running a VMware to install the programs you want, and copy the .reg and files over to x64, like they said a lot of crap uses 16bit installers for some reason but is 32bit.

Or VirtualPC (in my experience, more user friendly, but definitely much less powerful. But a great price... :))

[SuperSubZero]

one of the programs im trying to make work is adobe type manager http://www.adobe.com/products/atmlight/index.html i do graphic design and i would rather not have photoshop load all 5,000 fonts at once. it worked fine on my x86 xp install but it wont even run the setup for me now

Wikipedia, what can you tell us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Type_Manager
Users of ATM 4.0 (Light or Deluxe) on Windows 95/98/ME who upgrade to Windows 2000/XP may encounter problems, and it is vital not to install version 4.0 into Windows 2000 or later; affected users are encouraged to visit the Adobe web site for technical information and patches. Version 4.1.2 is fully compatible with Windows 2000 and XP (but not 64-bit Windows XP).
Adobe themselves must not consider this app to be particularly important, seeing as the last version they released for Windows was eight years ago. I can't believe you are the only person on earth who could use this functionality, so I would think there's some other solution out there that's a bit more recent.

[CHDA80]

Wikipedia, what can you tell us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Type_Manager

Adobe themselves must not consider this app to be particularly important, seeing as the last version they released for Windows was eight years ago. I can't believe you are the only person on earth who could use this functionality, so I would think there's some other solution out there that's a bit more recent.

yeah i found this program called "Suitcase" that does the same thing. ive been so used to ATM that its one of the programs i always install after a format. it was disappointing that the installer wouldnt work.

i tried vista ultimate x64 for a few hours but couldnt adjust to the OS layout and all the annoying "features" it has. is it worth it to suffer through the annoyances and get used to what vista has to offer/learn how to disable the things i hate? is the software compatibility much better for 16/32 bit applications in vista ultimate x64? i really want to use dx10 but it didnt see it worth it in the 1-2 hours i used it. the new wave of games is really forcing users to use dx10 so i might have no choice in the next few months not to switch over.

[SuperSubZero]

Vista x64 cannot run 16-bit apps either. 16-bit apps are fading away and these 64-bit OS's are pretty much going to end them completely.

[Mithent]

No, Windows x64 will never support 16-bit apps. Win32 has been around for well over 10 years now, and Win16 is very old. Although Microsoft could no doubt write an emulator for 16-bit apps, they'd really rather not have to keep supporting such an old API. Unfortunately the reliance of a great many businesses on 15-year-old 16-bit applications is what's stopping them getting rid of Win16 altogether by only releasing 64-bit versiosn of Windows.

[adam.mt]

CHDA80: You appear to be encountering two issues - the move from XP to Vista, and the move from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit. Your issues are due to the two.

ATM doesn't work because of the 64-bit thing, but it's an old and obselete program anyway and there are many alternatives.

The question is now why have you chosen the 64-bit version of Windows?
If you have less than (or equal) to 3.2GB of RAM then it's a waste of time, go back to the 32-bit version since software compatibility is slightly better for it (though the difference isn't that huge now to be honest; but it definitely does make a lot more sense for everybody but professionals).

Your other issues are the 'learning curve'; Vista is DIFFERENT to XP and not enough people realise this, they expect Vista to be the same as XP plus more, but it isn't, some things are now done differently. It's therefore your choice whether you want to invest the time to learn the differences (and in theory be more future proof). Currently theory on this is split about 50/50 between those happy with Vista and those saying it's junk stick with XP.

And yes in general features you don't like, eg UAC, can be disabled/changed - note, for this example (UAC) whether it's wise is another argument!. The main gripe that still exists against Vista is the fact that it's more resource heavy, but the better spec your PC the less this will trouble you. (I find many of the complaints against Vista are the same as was made against XP after it's release..... it's only because XP has been out for so long now that they've been solved and software/hardware has caught up.)

[Just for interest I happily run Vista 64-bit at home, and XP 32-bit at work and I wouldn't change either (due to PC spec and needs on both)]