I have a 32-bit Windows/Qt application using Postgres plugin. Recently, I've been intrigued to turn the app into a 64-bit app. So I checked the Qt docs for instructions, built Qt and its libraries into 64-bit successfully. Now the problem is Postgres does not provide libraries for 64-bit Windows! Obviously, the Qt Postgres plugin won't compile. I googled around a lot and didn't find any solutions, just a whole bunch of non-helpful discussion archive postings. So, is there a way for me to compile my app as true 64-bit while using Postgres in Windows?
ADDENUM
The problem isn't running Postgres as true 64-bit on Windows (which cannot be done) (I'm not managing the database, so I don't care even), but to compile my Qt app as 64-bit (which very much gains from being true 64-bit). But since it needs to access Postgres DB, I can't do it, Qt Postgres plugin will not compile and I won't have DB access.
So, should I just separate Postgres related stuff to a 32-bit DLL (can I use 32-bit dlls with 64-bit app even?), or even to a separate executable, or can I use some other framework for accessing it...?
Give me any, even dirty, solution to this problem and state the pros and cons it may have and what else it might affect or break.
I'm about to get Vista 64 on my work machine so I was looking this up as well.
Basically - No, Postrgresql will not compile in Windows 64bit (yet), though it has worked for years in *nix 64bit.
I found this link - from one of the maintainers of the Windows installer.
Related
I noticed that deployed on windows Qt applications are always including the dlls they needed.
Why did they made it that way?
Why can't they do it like on linux? - You install needed Qt version to system, and then every application that need it - can use it, e.g. only one instance of libraries(excluding different versions like qt4/qt5).
Wouldn't it be better to make it like Java/.Net, e.g. you install Java/.Net then you run/develop applications using only one instance of libraries(dlls).
I find it kinda "unconservating": I have 7 applications that use Qt5, and all of them have Qt5Core.dll, Qt5GUI.dll, etc. and every of them takes some space. Feels like I have 7 packs of Qt5 libraries... x_x
While on linux these same applications use only "one" Qt library.
I noticed that deployed on windows Qt applications are always including the dlls they needed.
This is called "local deployment".
Why did they made it that way?
I can think of a few reasons.
To avoid DLL Hell.
It is sanctioned by Microsoft. They wrote, "You can use this deployment method to enable installation by users who don't have administrator rights, or for applications that can be run from a network share." (see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/windows/choosing-a-deployment-method?view=vs-2019)
You install needed Qt version to system, and then every application that need it - can use it, e.g. only one instance of libraries(excluding different versions like qt4/qt5)
Qt is a C++ library. C++ DLLs can differ by more than just a major version number. The DLLs could be built with MinGW, or they could be built with MSVC; They could be 32-bit, or they could be 64-bit. The different variants are incompatible with each other.
Example: if you force a PC to have one global copy of Qt 5.14.1 MSVC 32-bit and put that in your PATH, then:
Other Qt apps on that PC that are built with MinGW cannot run.
Other Qt apps on that PC that are 64-bit cannot run.
Apps that must use Qt 5.13 might be broken. (For example, if a critical bug exists in Qt 5.14)
Why can't they do it like on linux? .... on linux these same applications use only "one" Qt library.
I listed a few disadvantages of this approach above. In addition, the version of Qt in Linux distros are usually a few versions behind so applications in the distro repository cannot make use the latest features, bugfixes, or improvements.
That's part of the reason why systems like AppImage and Snapcraft were invented. Sometimes, Linux users also want an app to contain a copy of its libraries, instead of having a single global copy of the libraries.
I want to install some software on a pre-alpha XP build (codename Windows Whistler). However, 90% of the installers fail to run. I guess it is because of the kernel version, which I suppose is somewhere between 5.0 and 5.1 (as I remember even the software that should run under Windsows 2000 did not succeed to install).
How can I most correctly and efficiently change the values in registry so that I have a chance to test some software (I know there can be bugs because of missing features, I'm doing tests in the VM).
The same question about Windows XP x64 with kernel version 5.2 - where to change it so that basic software designed for Win XP x86 does install as it does on regular Win XP (or maybe there is some compatibility option in properties).
Thanks for your help.
UPD: Java Runtime Environment version 5 update xxx should work on Windows 2000 (and even on Windows 98 SE, I tested it). But it somehow refused to install on Whistler... Maybe they cut something important away during development to make builds faster to compile?
You can try Right Click on .exe -> Properties -> Compatibility -> Run this program in compatibilty mode for.. and then specify compatible versions of OS.
We have a C++ / Objective C based app.
We use LLVM-GVC compiler to compile our code.
Currently we build 32-bit binaries and deploy them on our customer's machines.
We support SnowLeopard, Lion, Mountain Lion and Mavericks.
I'm aware that all these are 64 bit OS. They can run 32 bit binaries fine.
But i want to know, going forward , is it a better idea to deploy 64bit binaries of my app?
I can compile our code base and build 64 bit binaries, but i will have to link against 3rd party 64bit libraries etc.
I think its do-able.
My question is what are the advantages of deploying 64 bit binaries, provided that 32binaries still work on these OS's?
Also what bout Universal Binary? Do you guys think building a Universal Binary would be a better option? If yes, why?
I'd appreciate any thoughts/suggestions.
If your binaries are standalone apps, as in they're not plugins or dylibs for other programs, then there's nothing wrong with using 32-bit binaries. You're in good company; if you look at Google's Chrome browser, that also uses 32-bit binaries.
The advantage of 64-bit is that you can address more memory, if required and I think there are a few assembler instructions that are faster with 64-bit instructions, but overall, if it works for you, I don't believe it's an issue.
If you find yourself creating a dylib that must work with both 32 and 64 bit applications, that would be a reason for creating a Universal Binary, to save having to create one of each and work out which you need at runtime; with a Universal Binary OSX will take care of that for you.
I am trying to install Sheridan controls (ActiveThreed 2.01) on Win7 64-bit, but evidently it is a 16-bit installer so it won't execute.
What would be the best way to get round this problem?
Can anyone comment on whether http://homepage3.nifty.com/takeda-toshiya/msdos/index.html would be helpful?
It took me months of googling to find a solution for this issue. You don't need to install a virtual environment running a 32-bit version of Windows to run a program with a 16-bit installer on 64-bit Windows. If the program itself is 32-bit, and just the installer is 16-bit, here's your answer.
There are ways to modify a 16-bit installation program to make it 32-bit so it will install on 64-bit Windows 7. I found the solution on this site:
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=10988
In my case, the installation program was InstallShield 5.X. The issue was that the setup.exe program used by InstallShield 5.X is 16-bit. First I extracted the installation program contents (changed the extension from .exe to .zip, opened it and extracted). I then replaced the original 16-bit setup.exe, located in the disk1 folder, with InstallShield's 32-bit version of setup.exe (download this file from the site referenced in the above link). Then I just ran the new 32-bit setup.exe in disk1 to start the installation and my program installed and runs perfectly on 64-bit Windows.
You can also repackage this modified installation, so it can be distributed as an installation program, using a free program like Inno Setup 5.
You can't run 16-bit applications (or components) on 64-bit versions of Windows. That emulation layer no longer exists. The 64-bit versions already have to provide a compatibility layer for 32-bit applications.
Support for 16-bit had to be dropped eventually, even in a culture where backwards-compatibility is of sacred import. The transition to 64-bit seemed like as good a time as any. It's hard to imagine anyone out there in the wild that is still using 16-bit applications and seeking to upgrade to 64-bit OSes.
What would be the best way to get round this problem?
If the component itself is 16-bit, then using a virtual machine running a 32-bit version of Windows is your only real choice. Oracle's VirtualBox is free, and a perennial favorite.
If only the installer is 16-bit (and it installs a 32-bit component), then you might be able to use a program like 7-Zip to extract the contents of the installer and install them manually. Let's just say this "solution" is high-risk and you should have few, if any, expectations.
It's high time to upgrade away from 16-bit stuff, like Turbo C++ and Sheridan controls. I've yet to come across anything that the Sheridan controls can do that the built-in controls can't do and haven't been able to do since Windows 95.
I posted some information on the Infragistics forums for designer widgets that may help you for this. You can view the post with the following link:
http://forums.infragistics.com/forums/p/52530/320151.aspx#320151
Note that the registry keys would be different for the different product and you may need to install on a 32 bit machine to see what keys you need.
I am mostly posting this in case someone comes along and is not aware
that VB2005 and VB2008 have update utilities that convert older
VB versions to it's format. Especially since no one bothered to
point that fact out.
Points taken, but maintenance of this VB6 product is unavoidable. It would also be costly in man-hours to replace the Sheridan controls with native ones. Simply developing on a 32-bit machine would be a better alternative than doing that. I would like to install everything on Win7 64-bit ideally. – CJ7
Have you tried utilizing the code upgrade functionality of VB Express 2005+?
If not,
1. Make a copy of your code - folder and all.
2. Import the project into VB express 2005.
This will activate the update wizard.
3. Debug and get the app running.
4. Create a new installer utilizing MS free tool.
5. You now have a 32 bit application with a 32 bit installer.
Until you do this, you will never know how difficult or hard it
will be to update and modernize the program.
It is quite possible that the wizard will update the Sheridan controls
to the VB 2005 controls. Again, you will not know if it does
and how well it does it until you try it.
Alternatively, stick with the 32 Bit versions of Windows 7 and 8.
I have Windows 7 x64 and a program that will not run. However,
the program will run in Windows 7 32 bit as well as Windows 8 RC 32 bit.
Under Windows 8 RC 32, I was prompted to enable 16 bit emulation
which I did and the program rand quite fine afterwords.
I had 32-bit software with a 16-bit installer that I couldn't unzip. I solved it with otvdm which allows you to run windows 1.x, 2.x, 3 programs on win64. In fact, otvdmw allows you to select the program to run (otvdm is command-line).
16 bit installer will not work on windows 7 it's no longer supported by win 7 the most recent supported version of windows that can run 16 bit installer is vista 32-bit even vista 64-bit doesn't support 16-bit installer....
reference http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
Bottom line at the top: Get newer programs or get an older computer.
The solution is simple. It sucks but it's simple. For old programs keep an old computer up and running. Some times you just can't find the same game experience in the new games as the old ones. Sometimes there are programs that have no new counterparts that do the same thing. You basically have 2 choices at that point. On the bright side. Old computers can run $20 -$100 and that can buy you the whole system; monitor, tower, keyboard, mouse and speakers. If you have the patience to run old programs you should have the patience to find what you are looking for in want ads. I have 4 old computers running; 2 windows 98, 2 windows xp. The my wife and I each have win7 computers.
I'm maintaining an old VB6 application, that uses some Sheridan 3D controls (SSPanel and SSTab, found in threed32.ocx and tabctl32.ocx).
Will this application work on a 64-bit machine (I guess the 32 in threed32 comes from the bit number?)
If not, what can I do to make it work?
It should run fine via WoW.
EDIT: Since you've clarified that it's a 16-bit application1, if it's a LOB application that absolutely must run then you could try Windows XP Mode for Windows 7 and later.
If you've got a copy of VB6 kicking around, try importing the project and compiling it at 32-bit.
Otherwise you might want to put the source code through the VB .NET project upgrade wizard and see how far you can get simply by targeting 32-bit.
1 Are you sure it's VB6? The only references to 16-bit VB applications were from VB4