When my old Windows XP machine failed last year, it was a painful experience--it
had Photoshop v5 on it, my real workhorse program, one that I used daily. When I
bought a (used) Windows 7 'Ultimate Edition'  (64-bit) machine to replace it, I
naturally wanted to re-install that app. (I still have the original CD disk.)  I
understood, from everything I read,  that Win7-64bit was backwards-compatible
with older 32-bit applications. Sounded simple--  I would just re-install some
older programs that I wanted to use. Yet it turned out to be anything BUT
simple. (For more experienced computer-techies, this whole process would
probably be child's play; but I had never tried doing it on Windows 7.)

SO... I tried to re-install Photoshop 5. But to my surprise and irritation the
app didn't install when using the typical automated process on the disk-- in
fact, it just sat there like a dumb brick.

Windows 7 (my 'Ultimate' edition) has a 'compatibility' mode, for switching back
to an older 'compatible Win XP' configuration (which, as far as I understood at
the time, is needed for running 32-bit apps?) I tried turning on the appropriate
features/boxes for that, re: the Photoshop disk and elsewhere...but still no
luck. Not knowing what the problem might be, I sort of gave up, and assumed
that there was some kind of problem with the installation disk , or with my CD
drive, or with Windows 7, or *something*. Over the intervening months, I tried
again to install the app, without success. (BTW, that's the definition of
'stupidity': doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different
result, ha!)

This situation was really nagging at me, so I recently decided to do some
research. The first information I came across was that Win 7's 'XP compatibility
mode' is not really *built-in* to Win 7; apparently, I first needed to download
a (free) full version of Windows XP available for this purpose from Microsoft,
and install *that* for the process to work. OK, that sounded simple enough. But
I also discovered that  'compatibilty mode' requires that my Win 7's CPU and/or
motherboard be able to run in a 'virtual PC' environment-- which, unfortunately,
it does not(!) (I downloaded a small Microsoft 'test' app to determine this,
called 'havdetectiontool'.) WHY my particular CPU doesn't do this, I don't know.
(And nothing I read about Win 7 prior to buying my replacement computer said
anything about this possible situation.) SO, once again, I was at a roadblock,
ready to give up on ever installing my old Photoshop.

But this was *really* bugging now, so I continued with more research-- and came
across some obscure info that the Photoshop disk's built-in *installer* might be
to blame for the entire problem-- that it might be a so-called 16-bit installer,
when Win 7 can only work with 32-bit installers, as I subsequently discovered.
(Apparently, Windows XP was the last version that could natively install 32-bit
apps that used 16-bit installers?) Anyway, I checked the Photoshop disk's
SETUP.exe file, and sure enough, it was an InstallShield v3.xxx *16-bit*
installer.

But one of the websites I visited had a 'replacement' 32-bit installer, free for
download. Good news, I hoped!

SO... to get this scheme to work, I extracted all the Photoshop contents/files
from the installation disk and put them in a dummy folder on my desktop-- to
completely avoid the disk's 'autorun' installation--along with the 'new'
SETUP32.exe file that I downloaded. Double-clicking on *that* instead of the
original SETUP.exe worked beautifully, and Photoshop installed without a glitch!
The process ultimately turned out to be EASY...but getting to that point wasn't
easy at all.

The moral of this story is: Never give up!

(BTW, one website I came across said that all I had to do was rename the
original SETUP.exe file as SETUP32.exe, and Photoshop would install OK. That
sounded bogus-- how does simply *renaming* the file change it from a 16-bit to a
32-bit installer?!)

I do have some un-answered questions about this entire process, though:

1) Is the successful SETUP32.exe installer --or installer 'stub', as it's
called-- a 'generic' installer (well, generic to InstallShield-configured
application disks)? Or is it *specific* for use only with that particular
Photoshop app/disk, made for it and nothing else? (The website I got it from
didn't make a distinction.) If it's 'generic', can it be used to install *other*
older 32-bit apps that happen to use InstallShield? (I haven't tried this yet.)

2) After the install, I took a look at the actual Photoshp.exe application file;
it isn't running in 'compatibilty' mode, but runs OK nevertheless.  So if a
replacement 32-bit installer allows a 32-bit program to successfully install and
run on Windows 7 (which it did), then I don't really understand the actual NEED
for running in 'compatibility' mode with a required Windows XP download, or
running in a 'virtual PC' environment at all, since neither of these were
required in my case. What other purpose(s) does compatibility mode, etc. have?

Post a reply to this message

On 3/21/2017 7:08 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> When my old Windows XP machine failed last year, it was a painful experience--it
> had Photoshop v5 on it, my real workhorse program, one that I used daily. When I
> bought a (used) Windows 7 'Ultimate Edition'  (64-bit) machine to replace it, I
> naturally wanted to re-install that app. (I still have the original CD disk.)  I
> understood, from everything I read,  that Win7-64bit was backwards-compatible
> with older 32-bit applications. Sounded simple--  I would just re-install some
> older programs that I wanted to use. Yet it turned out to be anything BUT
> simple. (For more experienced computer-techies, this whole process would
> probably be child's play; but I had never tried doing it on Windows 7.)
>
> SO... I tried to re-install Photoshop 5. But to my surprise and irritation the
> app didn't install when using the typical automated process on the disk-- in
> fact, it just sat there like a dumb brick.
>
> Windows 7 (my 'Ultimate' edition) has a 'compatibility' mode, for switching back
> to an older 'compatible Win XP' configuration (which, as far as I understood at
> the time, is needed for running 32-bit apps?) I tried turning on the appropriate
> features/boxes for that, re: the Photoshop disk and elsewhere...but still no
> luck. Not knowing what the problem might be, I sort of gave up, and assumed
> that there was some kind of problem with the installation disk , or with my CD
> drive, or with Windows 7, or *something*. Over the intervening months, I tried
> again to install the app, without success. (BTW, that's the definition of
> 'stupidity': doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different
> result, ha!)
>
> This situation was really nagging at me, so I recently decided to do some
> research. The first information I came across was that Win 7's 'XP compatibility
> mode' is not really *built-in* to Win 7; apparently, I first needed to download
> a (free) full version of Windows XP available for this purpose from Microsoft,
> and install *that* for the process to work. OK, that sounded simple enough. But
> I also discovered that  'compatibilty mode' requires that my Win 7's CPU and/or
> motherboard be able to run in a 'virtual PC' environment-- which, unfortunately,
> it does not(!) (I downloaded a small Microsoft 'test' app to determine this,
> called 'havdetectiontool'.) WHY my particular CPU doesn't do this, I don't know.
> (And nothing I read about Win 7 prior to buying my replacement computer said
> anything about this possible situation.) SO, once again, I was at a roadblock,
> ready to give up on ever installing my old Photoshop.
>
> But this was *really* bugging now, so I continued with more research-- and came
> across some obscure info that the Photoshop disk's built-in *installer* might be
> to blame for the entire problem-- that it might be a so-called 16-bit installer,
> when Win 7 can only work with 32-bit installers, as I subsequently discovered.
> (Apparently, Windows XP was the last version that could natively install 32-bit
> apps that used 16-bit installers?) Anyway, I checked the Photoshop disk's
> SETUP.exe file, and sure enough, it was an InstallShield v3.xxx *16-bit*
> installer.
>

Only the 64-bit versions of Windows XP/7/8/10 can't run 16-bit programs. 
The 32-bit versions of these operating systems should be able to run 
them fine. (Barring any other unrelated issues...)


> But one of the websites I visited had a 'replacement' 32-bit installer, free for
> download. Good news, I hoped!
>
> SO... to get this scheme to work, I extracted all the Photoshop contents/files
> from the installation disk and put them in a dummy folder on my desktop-- to
> completely avoid the disk's 'autorun' installation--along with the 'new'
> SETUP32.exe file that I downloaded. Double-clicking on *that* instead of the
> original SETUP.exe worked beautifully, and Photoshop installed without a glitch!
> The process ultimately turned out to be EASY...but getting to that point wasn't
> easy at all.
>
> The moral of this story is: Never give up!
>
> (BTW, one website I came across said that all I had to do was rename the
> original SETUP.exe file as SETUP32.exe, and Photoshop would install OK. That
> sounded bogus-- how does simply *renaming* the file change it from a 16-bit to a
> 32-bit installer?!)
>
> I do have some un-answered questions about this entire process, though:
>
> 1) Is the successful SETUP32.exe installer --or installer 'stub', as it's
> called-- a 'generic' installer (well, generic to InstallShield-configured
> application disks)? Or is it *specific* for use only with that particular
> Photoshop app/disk, made for it and nothing else? (The website I got it from
> didn't make a distinction.) If it's 'generic', can it be used to install *other*
> older 32-bit apps that happen to use InstallShield? (I haven't tried this yet.)
>

I think the installer is specific to the application you're trying to 
install. Happened to me too with some older Win95 video games. I don't 
think you can use it to install other programs.

> 2) After the install, I took a look at the actual Photoshp.exe application file;
> it isn't running in 'compatibilty' mode, but runs OK nevertheless.  So if a
> replacement 32-bit installer allows a 32-bit program to successfully install and
> run on Windows 7 (which it did), then I don't really understand the actual NEED
> for running in 'compatibility' mode with a required Windows XP download, or
> running in a 'virtual PC' environment at all, since neither of these were
> required in my case. What other purpose(s) does compatibility mode, etc. have?
>
>

A lot of older programs work well without using compatibility mode. It 
might not have been necessary in your case. I can't remember if I've 
ever needed to use it or not.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 3/21/2017 11:08 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> When my old Windows XP machine failed last year, it was a painful experience--it
> had Photoshop v5 on it, my real workhorse program, one that I used daily. When I
>


[Snip]

>
> The moral of this story is: Never give up!
>

Bravo!
I liked your story. And it explains why some of my old software did not 
install.

> (BTW, one website I came across said that all I had to do was rename the
> original SETUP.exe file as SETUP32.exe, and Photoshop would install OK. That
> sounded bogus-- how does simply *renaming* the file change it from a 16-bit to a
> 32-bit installer?!)
>

Because some folk will believe anything. ;-)
I've read some strange ideas on the internet.


> I do have some un-answered questions about this entire process, though:
>



> 1) Is the successful SETUP32.exe installer --or installer 'stub', as it's
> called-- a 'generic' installer (well, generic to InstallShield-configured
> application disks)? Or is it *specific* for use only with that particular
> Photoshop app/disk, made for it and nothing else? (The website I got it from
> didn't make a distinction.) If it's 'generic', can it be used to install *other*
> older 32-bit apps that happen to use InstallShield? (I haven't tried this yet.)
>

Just a guess, if it from this site and I am reading it right.

https://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10988

I think so from the way I read it.



Or it could fit where it touches. :)


> 2) After the install, I took a look at the actual Photoshp.exe application file;
> it isn't running in 'compatibilty' mode, but runs OK nevertheless.  So if a
> replacement 32-bit installer allows a 32-bit program to successfully install and
> run on Windows 7 (which it did), then I don't really understand the actual NEED
> for running in 'compatibility' mode with a required Windows XP download, or
> running in a 'virtual PC' environment at all, since neither of these were
> required in my case. What other purpose(s) does compatibility mode, etc. have?
>
>

Too deep into the bowls for me. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.03.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Kenneth:

> I do have some un-answered questions about this entire process, though:
> 
> 1) Is the successful SETUP32.exe installer --or installer 'stub', as it's
> called-- a 'generic' installer (well, generic to InstallShield-configured
> application disks)? Or is it *specific* for use only with that particular
> Photoshop app/disk, made for it and nothing else? (The website I got it from
> didn't make a distinction.) If it's 'generic', can it be used to install *other*
> older 32-bit apps that happen to use InstallShield? (I haven't tried this yet.)

At best, it might be a generic replacement for installers created with
the same installer toolkit; but I'd expect it to work only for that
specific application. I can't imagine how it could be totally generic,
given that installers are technicall just applications and might
theoretically do just about anything.

> 2) After the install, I took a look at the actual Photoshp.exe application file;
> it isn't running in 'compatibilty' mode, but runs OK nevertheless.  So if a
> replacement 32-bit installer allows a 32-bit program to successfully install and
> run on Windows 7 (which it did), then I don't really understand the actual NEED
> for running in 'compatibility' mode with a required Windows XP download, or
> running in a 'virtual PC' environment at all, since neither of these were
> required in my case. What other purpose(s) does compatibility mode, etc. have?

There are multiple different things in play here:


[A] 64-bit vs. 32-bit vs. 16-bit. This is primarily a CPU thing.

A x86-64 CPU can run in one of various different modes:

(1) A 16-bit single-tasking mode.
(2) A 16-bit multitasking OS mode.
(3) A 32-bit multitasking OS mode.
(4) A 64-bit multitasking OS mode (AMD64).

Mode (2) includes an emulation of (1).
Mode (3) includes emulations of both (1) and (2).
Mode (4) includes only an emulation of (3).

Thus, any operating system designed to run 64-bit applications is
fundamentally unable to run 16-bit applications, except via software
emulation. Running 32-bit applications, on the other hand, is a piece of
cake.

(New CPU features, like hypervisor support, may modify this picture,
presumably by providing a mode that emulates all the modes (1) through (4).)


[B] Windows API and software development guidelines.

Over time, new Windows versions have not only changed the user
interface, but also the set of functionality the OS provides to
programs, and in various cases clarified (or even changed) how
prorammers are supposed to make use of that functionality for particular
use cases. As a result, some old software may be using features in a way
they they are no longer intended to be used, and which may have been
disabled for security reasons.

For example, some programs designed for Windows XP or earlier would
expect to have write access to the directory in which the program's
binaries were installed, which Windows 7 no longer allows.


To my knowledge, the compatibility modes provided by Windows 7 are all
about [B]. 32-bit applications /per se/ run file on 64-bit Windows.

You might even encounter 64-bit software that needs XP compatibility
mode (there was a Windows XP x64 edition, and although technically it
was based on Windows Server 2003, it presumably was more similar to
genuine XP than to Vista).

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>
> Just a guess, if it from this site and I am reading it right.
>
> https://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10988
>
> I think so from the way I read it.
>

YES, that's the one. Hmm, maybe it wasn't as 'obscure' a site as I thought ;-)
The free 32-bit installer (for Photoshop/InstallShield-related stuff, at least)
is called "Is3Engine.zip", about halfway down the page.

Here's the site that actually led me there, which has some useful info too...

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9106825/how-to-execute-16-bit-installer-on-64-bit-win7

Post a reply to this message

Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> Only the 64-bit versions of Windows XP/7/8/10 can't run 16-bit programs.
> The 32-bit versions of these operating systems should be able to run
> them fine. (Barring any other unrelated issues...)

Yeah, I *eventually* discovered that this was the case. My older Win XP computer
came installed with a 32-bit OS (even though the machine itself had an AMD
64-bit processor.) But I never installed 64-bit Windows on it, so I never had to
deal with incorrect installers or 'compatibility mode' crap, until now.

>
> I think the installer is specific to the application you're trying to
> install. Happened to me too with some older Win95 video games. I don't
> think you can use it to install other programs.
>

Seems to be the case. I still have a few older apps that I would *like* to
re-install-- but if every app uses its own *very particular* installer, either
I'll give up on the idea, or else spend the next YEAR trying to hunt down the
correct 32-bit installers!!

>
> A lot of older programs work well without using compatibility mode. It
> might not have been necessary in your case. I can't remember if I've
> ever needed to use it or not.
>

I'm still a bit fuzzy about which programs need compatibility mode, and which
don't. And why. Hopefully, I can get some clear answers with enough research.
Now that the Photoshop trick worked, I *really* want to find out more. Pity the
poor *typical* computer user who wouldn't even know where to look, or what to
look for! (Or maybe wouldn't even care!!)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> There are multiple different things in play here:
>
>
> [A] 64-bit vs. 32-bit vs. 16-bit. This is primarily a CPU thing.
>
> A x86-64 CPU can run in one of various different modes:
>
> (1) A 16-bit single-tasking mode.
> (2) A 16-bit multitasking OS mode.
> (3) A 32-bit multitasking OS mode.
> (4) A 64-bit multitasking OS mode (AMD64).
>
> Mode (2) includes an emulation of (1).
> Mode (3) includes emulations of both (1) and (2).
> Mode (4) includes only an emulation of (3).
>
> Thus, any operating system designed to run 64-bit applications is
> fundamentally unable to run 16-bit applications, except via software
> emulation. Running 32-bit applications, on the other hand, is a piece of
> cake.

[clip]

Although I was able to glean *some* of this info from my MANY mind-numbing
researches (while my eyes glazed over), you've managed to condense it all into a
form that's actually understandable. Thanks! The 'net is great for doing
research on arcane technical topics-- but sometimes it's difficult to 'connect
all the dots.'


>
> For example, some programs designed for Windows XP or earlier would
> expect to have write access to the directory in which the program's
> binaries were installed, which Windows 7 no longer allows.
>

It seems that my Photoshop app *is* actually able to save *some* of my
operational info back to disk-- into its 'preferences' file (or wherever)--
things like my tool settings, so that I don't have to keep re-setting them when
I re-start the app. And I haven't yet seen any pop-up dialogue boxes, warning me
that PS can't save my preferences when I shut it down. (Which I've seen before
IIRC, on my old WinXP box, under odd circumstances.)

Post a reply to this message

On 3/21/2017 9:59 PM, clipka wrote:
> For example, some programs designed for Windows XP or earlier would
> expect to have write access to the directory in which the program's
> binaries were installed, which Windows 7 no longer allows.
>

That depends on where you install the program. I have a separate 
partition just for old programs like this.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 22/03/2017 01:00 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/21/2017 11:08 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>> (BTW, one website I came across said that all I had to do was rename the
>> original SETUP.exe file as SETUP32.exe, and Photoshop would install
>> OK. That
>> sounded bogus-- how does simply *renaming* the file change it from a
>> 16-bit to a
>> 32-bit installer?!)
>
> Because some folk will believe anything. ;-)
> I've read some strange ideas on the internet.

Well, you laugh, but certain versions of Windows *do* actually treat 
programs with "special" names differently.

Like, IIRC Vista will automatically prompt for privilege elevation if 
you run a program that happens to be called INSTALL.EXE and doesn't 
contain a manifest file stating whether it needs elevated privileges or 
not. This is intended to make old software still work. (From a time 
before access controls existed.) If you rename the exact same program 
to, say, BANANA.EXE, no privilege elevation prompt. It's a workaround to 
try to make old software still work.

No idea if current releases of Windows still do this...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
> Well, you laugh, but certain versions of Windows *do* actually treat
> programs with "special" names differently.
>
> [snip] ... If you rename the exact same program
> to, say, BANANA.EXE, no privilege elevation prompt. It's a workaround to
> try to make old software still work.
>

Wow, that's wierd. I probably wouldn't have believed that info either, ha! I
never did try simply *renaming* Photoshop's installer stub to SETUP32.exe-- I
thought it might cause grave havoc, or turn Photoshop into an old Atari game or
something...

Oh, the horror!

Post a reply to this message