When will there be a 64-bit version of Avast! ?

[bonfie]

My computer is running XP Pro 64-bit.

When I use explorer it cannot find the eicar.com testfile.
When I use Total Commander 32 --> using the same windows, no restarts <-- the eicar.com file is found.

Can you send my a 64bit virustest if avast! is not detecting .com files as virus from 64-bit API calls?

I'd like to conferm that the 64-bit driver is installed...

[Lisandro]

But does eicar.com is detected in a XP Pro 64-bit system?
I'm not sure, eicar test was made to run into a 32-bit system and I'm not sure it is a way to test the 64-bit or you should wait for another test.
Other possibility is trying to see the properties of the running processes using ProcessExplorer from www.sysinternals.com
Right click ashserv.exe process. Choose Properties and then Strings. See (browse for) if the type of the string is win32 or win64.

[igor]

DOS programs are scanned (on-execute) differently than Win32/Win64 programs - the DOS subsystem of Windows passes the file to avast! driver before executing them.
In Win 64, you cannot run COM files (there is no DOS subsystem present) - so the system doesn't pass the file to avast!. As I said, however, there's no need to worry, as the file couldn't be started anyway (as the error message says).

The COM files are not scanned on-open ("on-read") by default; if you add the COM extension to Standard Shield's "Scan files on open" box, the file should be detected even in this case.

What is somehow suprising it that the file is detected when you run it from Total Commander... maybe TC starts it in a different way. I'll check it, but I'd say you don't have to worry - everything is OK.

[Lisandro]

In Win 64, you cannot run COM files (there is no DOS subsystem present)

Igor, won't it be possible to run 16bits applications anymore?
Is Windows Vista a 64bits OS or, on contrary, it will allow DOS subsystem?

[lukor]

In Win 64, you cannot run COM files (there is no DOS subsystem present)

Igor, won't it be possible to run 16bits applications anymore?
Is Windows Vista a 64bits OS or, on contrary, it will allow DOS subsystem?

If I am not mistaken, Vista is not (necessarily) 64bit OS but it will not run 16bit programs anyway...

[igor]

Yes, it is not possible to run 16bit programs (DOS or Win3.1 apps) anymore in Win64. I guess Microsoft had enough to do to implement WOW (Windows 32 on Windows 64), so making it WOWOW would be probably too much.
No idea about Vista, I'm afraid.

[Saul Luizaga]

I all for a 64-bit version like it was before, in the same installer we had the 32 & 64-bit versions. I think is good for the foolowing reasons:
- 64-bit is the way to go because is the future of software, 64-bit versions of many programs are released.
- 32-bit software executes a little faster on a 64-bit CPU & OS that in 32-bit mode, but WOW64 kills the performance gain, so the effective performance is practically the same as the the 32-bit software on a 32-bit CPU & OS combo, so if 32-bit software run a little faster on a 64-bit CPU & OS combo, 64-bit software will run much faster for the following reasons:
  + 64-bit software processes twice the data at almost no cycles penalty per 64-bit machine instruction sent to the 64-bit CPU, AMD at
    least has made this VERY clear.
  + You don't use WOW64 so you gain back the lost performance with 32-bit software, you get native, full-speed interface with the 64-bit OS
    & drivers.

So Intel and specially AMD has focused on developing a mature 64-bit capability in hardware, so all the MoBos & devices manufactures so we can use a wider range of resources at fasters speeds, so why some software vendors deny this technology and advantages? too used to their comfort zone?

[Gargamel360]

So Intel and specially AMD has focused on developing a mature 64-bit capability in hardware, so all the MoBos & devices manufactures so we can use a wider range of resources at fasters speeds, so why some software vendors deny this technology and advantages? too used to their comfort zone?

No.....they have a broad audience to serve, with limited resources.  They have to balance what is most cost-effective for both them and the customer. 

[igor]

  + 64-bit software processes twice the data at almost no cycles penalty per 64-bit machine instruction sent to the 64-bit CPU, AMD at least has made this VERY clear.

Nope. Sure, the registers are twice as big, but most algorithms cannot take advantage of that anyway, so the size of the registers doesn't matter [if you're somewhere and want to get somewhere else by car, preferably as soon as possible - it doesn't matter if your car is twice as big now, it won't get you to your destination any faster; on contrary, you might actually be a bit slower with the bigger car, which is exactly the case here.]
And, if the particular algorithm is of the nature where wider registers help, there are already better technologies out there (SSE - with 128bit registers, available even in 32bit mode).

So Intel and specially AMD has focused on developing a mature 64-bit capability in hardware, so all the MoBos & devices manufactures so we can use a wider range of resources at fasters speeds, so why some software vendors deny this technology and advantages? too used to their comfort zone?

Because you only think that you'd get any speed benefit automatically - but the reality is often different.
Sure, 64bit is the way to go if you need to work with large data and take advantage of >4GB memory - image/video processing software, for example. But for most software, there's no significant benefit.

[RejZoR]

It doesn't, because it's a 16bit program (technically speaking).

[ravi16aug]

I belive NO antivirus works in pure 64bit mode.

Sorry, but Microsoft Security Essentials and Hitman Pro both work in pure 64-bit mode.