Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Original link:

Basically, he can't get his 32 bit app to run under x64. He has tried XP compat mode.

Is there any alternative besides buyint the very expensive x64 version?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by EEAA, MDMarra, Jason Berg, Zypher Feb 22 '11 at 6:10

Questions on Server Fault are expected to relate to server, networking, or related infrastructure administration within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Voted to close as off-topic. Have the OP post his own question on SU if he really needs help. – EEAA Feb 22 '11 at 4:50

My experience with x64 compatibility issues generally boils down to one thing: a bug in .Net software compiled in the "Any CPU" mode that pulls in a 32-bit unmanaged dll.

When running on x64 systems, the .Net framework doesn't yet have the information it needs at app startup time to know that a dynamically loaded library needs 32bit mode, and so it starts up "Any CPU"-compiled programs with a 64bit process. This is what it should do. Of course, this 64bit process cannot later load a 32bit dll. It's about a 10 second fix on the part of the software developer to change the app over from "Any CPU" to "x86" and then rebuild, but you have to convince them that they need to do that.

This is actually a very common scenario, as a lot of apps these days (especially in categories like video processing that provide a front-end for cpu intensive tasks) will use .Net to build a windows interface that just calls out to a more-performant library written in C or C++.

I remember a discussion (possibly among MS MVP's) about potentially changing the default compile mode in Visual Studio from "Any CPU" to "x86" to address this issue, but I don't remember what ever came of it.

share|improve this answer
You're making a massive assumption that this software is incompatible due to a .NET problem. -1 for you. – user3914 Feb 22 '11 at 5:01
+1 Regardless of the assumptions about the original problem, this answer makes a point worth noting, and may explain a pending issue I have with a .NET application after moving everything from 32-bit XP to 64-bit Win7 recently.... – RBerteig Feb 22 '11 at 6:56
@Randolph, given you know no more about the software than Joel, what puts you in the position to presume the answer is wrong?! – Chris S Feb 22 '11 at 13:44
@Randolph - I think you're being unfair to Joel - he's not saying the OP's problem must be down to .net, he's instead saying "My experiences are..." - sharing one's own experiences of when you have seen an issue is not the same as assuming that everyone else is having the same problem you are. – RobM Feb 22 '11 at 13:45
Given that the original article states that there is a specific version for a 64-bit platform that the complainant is not willing to upgrade to, I'm disinclined to change my opinion. – user3914 Feb 22 '11 at 21:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.