[paullyboy]

and going back to XP. Too many reasons, but a couple of questions. The laptop I bought(Acer Extensa) came with Vista Home Premium 64 bit OS. I want to remove the hard drive 'as is' and replace with a new one, then load OEM XP Home and IE6. Solid as a rock. Will that OS work on the newer 64 bit machine? Also, my old DOS executables won't run in Vista(no longer supports Fullscreen apps), and I have to have them for record keeping. Any thoughts much appreciated.

Best, Paul

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

any PC running a 64 bit OS can use a 32 bit OS (and before anyone correct me -except itanium but thats not what were talking about)

i would say youd be better off stepping down to Vista 32bit (you can use the same license) IMO though

[cluberti]

Heh - Itanium laptop. Very funny .

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

yeah i just knew if i didn't mention itanium somebody would 'correct' me. this is the Internet after all.

[paullyboy]

geek, on Sep 14 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

i would say youd be better off stepping down to Vista 32bit (you can use the same license) IMO though

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks man. Just out of curiosity, why Vista 32? Is it as bug-laden as what I've got now? Between it and AOL 9.1, I don't even like turning the freakin' computer on anymore .

Best, Paul

[S.SubZero]

geek, on Sep 14 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

any PC running a 64 bit OS can use a 32 bit OS

The problem may be the lack of easily available XP32 drivers for the hardware. They probably exist, but Acer, like other OEMs, may not have them easily available for download.

For the OP I would recommend scanning Device Manager and finding the network card and video card models and finding XP drivers for them first.

As for Vista 32.. *cringe*..

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

S.SubZero, on Sep 15 2008, 12:04 AM, said:

The problem may be the lack of easily available XP32 drivers for the hardware. They probably exist, but Acer, like other OEMs, may not have them easily available for download.

Yeah if his OEM doesnt supply Vista 32 bit drivers im sure theyll be posting drivers for XP. hes gonna have to go on a driver hunt either way.

paullyboy, on Sep 14 2008, 10:40 PM, said:

Thanks man. Just out of curiosity, why Vista 32? Is it as bug-laden as what I've got now? Between it and AOL 9.1, I don't even like turning the freakin' computer on anymore .

<soapbox mode>
OK step 1: Ditch AOL. Drop them like a bad habit. uninstall it, delete all the restore points, and burn the installation media. Their software is more vile and disgusting than most of the malware I clean up on a daily basis.
</soapbox mode>

as for my reasoning Vista 32 over Vista 64, Vista 64 does not support 16 applications that just about eliminates all old DOS programs. You would be surprised what runs on Vista 32. It'll run nearly anything XP can. also you wont need a second license and as I stated above, you are more likely to find good working drivers for Vista 32 than XP.

[eyeball]

paullyboy, on Sep 14 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

my old DOS executables won't run in Vista(no longer supports Fullscreen apps), and I have to have them for record keeping. Any thoughts much appreciated.

Im suprised no one has mentioned virtualisation as a solution for this

[cluberti]

eyeball, on Sep 15 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

Im suprised no one has mentioned virtualisation as a solution for this

Well, assuming you have a separate Vista (or downlevel client-OS) license, then this is a no-brainer to stay on Vista x64. However, if you don't, then running Vista x86 makes *some* sense (but I agree with you, virtualization is a better route).

[alexBB]

To the OP: You can run your DOS software in emulation mode. You can run XP on your Vista and run your DOS from there, you can most likely find a direct DOS emulation for Vista. It will be much less expensive for you to do it, perhaps even will cost nothing. Just investigate.

[paullyboy]

eyeball, on Sep 15 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

Im suprised no one has mentioned virtualisation as a solution for this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks guys, lots of good tips. You are, however, dealing with an id*** . I have no idea what virtualization is. Is it a downloadable program, or something already inside Vista? I'd put up with Vista if I could just run the old programs. I can't get Vista to 'emulate' any other OS no matter what changes I make in 'Properties'. The only thing that opens is an
old 'QuickBasic ' program(stop laughing), and that's after a warning about fullscreen mode not being supported. The executables just quit after the warning. Neither will open/run with a full screen, and my eyes can't deal with a small box . I'm gonna Google virtualization now and see what pops up.

Best, Paul

[S.SubZero]

geek, on Sep 14 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

as for my reasoning Vista 32 over Vista 64, Vista 64 does not support 16 applications that just about eliminates all old DOS programs.

If you have an honest, unremoveable reliance on a DOS application, in the year 2008, then you have some legacy issues that are outside the bounds of the conversation. Today it's hard to justify not going to x64-based systems simply because of DOS. You may as well say "well my video card can't output to a CGA monitor so I'll never get a new video card." It's silly. The vast majority (99.9%) of users have no need for 16-bit app support. 16-bit apps officially died years ago.

Quote

I have no idea what virtualization is.

You can google it, but in simplest terms it creates a virtual computer that runs on your desktop. You have a window, and that window is it's own functional computer. It has a BIOS, a set of virtual hardware, it loads an OS, and it exists in a "sandbox" independent of the real PC. It's awesome technology. It takes a bit of a beefy system to really take advantage of it (lots of RAM and hard disk mostly) but it is a cool and interesting way to try out different operating systems and apps without affecting your system.

[paullyboy]

S.SubZero, on Sep 15 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

If you have an honest, unremoveable reliance on a DOS application, in the year 2008, then you have some legacy issues that are outside the bounds of the conversation. Today it's hard to justify not going to x64-based systems simply because of DOS. You may as well say "well my video card can't output to a CGA monitor so I'll never get a new video card." It's silly. The vast majority (99.9%) of users have no need for 16-bit app support. 16-bit apps officially died years ago.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Points acknowledged, but these are extremely specific apps, designed to do specific jobs. I have no problem with new technology, and could buy Visual Basic or C, learn the basics, then completely re-code the programs, but isn't that kinda silly if I can get the old ones working. As mentioned, Quick Basic opens, and will allow code to be written, run and turned into a stand-alone .exe, so Vista 64 obviously hasn't put DOS to rest. Programs written 15 years ago worked great on XP, but not Vista. That's where I stand now. I will give (Microsoft?) virtualization a closer look to see if it's what I need. Thanks for the explanation.

Best, Paul

[cluberti]

paullyboy, on Sep 15 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

so Vista 64 obviously hasn't put DOS to rest. Programs written 15 years ago worked great on XP, but not Vista.

Actually, you are incorrect - *Vista* hasn't, but the x64 architecture has. There is no way to have 16bit support on a true x64 OS due to architectural limitations, wthout resorting to virtualization. I would suggest something like DOSBox if you're running an x64 OS, because you *cannot* have native 16bit in an x64 OS. Certain 16bit *installers* using InstallShield or Acme setup engines will actually run because they are recompiled as 32bit installers during the load, as there is special code written into the WOW64 subsystem to allow this to work by running the 16bit installer as a 32bit app recompiled automatically at load time. However, if the app being installed is not an actual 32bit application and is a 16bit app, it will still fail to run (even though installed). To reiterate, when the CPU is running in x64 mode, it is not possible for it to provide 16bit addressing, and as such 16bit apps *will not* run on an x64 OS due to hardware architectural limitations.

[paullyboy]

Wow, thanks Cluberti. DOSbox looks like the perfect tool. Gonna downlaod it today and give it a spin. A couple quick questions.

From what I gather, replacing Vista(64 bit version) with XP Home(32 bit I believe) will not fix my problem. It's a processor problem, not a Vista problem, correct?

Would I be wasting time/money with a new, clean hard drive and a fresh install of XP Home version?

Again, thanks.

Best, Paul

This post has been edited by paullyboy: 17 September 2008 - 09:21 AM