C:\Program Files (x86)

[Stewart]

I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are 2
folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program Files;
each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files (programs) in
the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?

 

[Paul]

I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are
2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program
Files; each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?

On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case.

On a 32 bit OS install, only one of those folders exists. That's
because you can only run 32 bit code in a 32 bit OS.

You got two folders, because your OS is 64 bit.

*******

Sure, there are a gazillion ways they *could* have implemented a
loader strategy. But they chose this way, for reasons that
aren't apparent.

It is actually possible, to tell apart "PE32" files from "PE32+"
files. So you can tell differences between 32 bit and 64 bit code.
Even the .NET executables have detectable differences. But it's
just cleaner to have two separate places to install to, so that
changes to one, don't affect the other.

Paul

 

[...winston]

"Stewart" wrote in message I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are 2
folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program Files;
each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files (programs) in
the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?
To briefly supplement Paul's response (and answer your question)
- No
- it is ***not*** OK to incorporate the system required 32-bit C:\Program Files (x86) files (programs) into the 64-bit system
required C:\Program Files folder

 

[mechanic]

I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that
there are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86)
and C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use. I
think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and
am wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program
Files folder. Does anyone know if this is OK?

If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

 

[Stewart]

Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.



"mechanic" wrote in message

I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that
there are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86)
and C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use. I
think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and
am wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program
Files folder. Does anyone know if this is OK?

If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

 

[John Williamson]

If it works ok why bother?

Agreed.

The Windows designers know what they're

doing.

Doubtful, given they're currently on the bad part of the release cycle
with Windows 8. I'm hoping I can eke out this XP installation until
Windows 9 is released.

 

[Stan Brown]

On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case. ....
You got two folders, because your OS is 64 bit.

Sure, there are a gazillion ways they *could* have implemented a
loader strategy. But they chose this way, for reasons that
aren't apparent.

It is actually possible, to tell apart "PE32" files from "PE32+"
files. So you can tell differences between 32 bit and 64 bit code.
Even the .NET executables have detectable differences. But it's
just cleaner to have two separate places to install to, so that
changes to one, don't affect the other.

I'm not blaming the messenger here, but that seems an eminently silly
design decision. As you say, Windows knows how to tell whether a
given program is 32- or 64-bit.

How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

Even if that justification did hold water, if that rare case even
exists it would make a lot more sense just to install the second
program version to a different folder. This is what happens now with
say Office 2003 and 2010.

As it is now, every time anyone in support tells someone about
something in program files, we have have to do it twice: "If you have
64-bit Windows, do this; but if you have 32-bit Windows, do that."

This same silliness carries over into the Registry, where you have
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\(proramname) for 64-bit programs and
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\SysWOW6432\(programname) for 32-bit
programs. In theory there's supposed to be some kind of mapping to
make that transparent to applications, but if that actually exists
then it doesn't work in REGEDIT.

 

[Stan Brown]

Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.

If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.

The problem is that Windows Live Mail 2011 (version 15) and also
version 16 have a quoting style that is completely broken.
Unfortunately that poses a painful choice to you: either fix every
quote manually, or get a real newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews,
and Forte Agent (to mention some that come to mind at the moment).
OR, if you really want WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve; see "SC
Tom" below.

update 2011-04-02: I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you
can un-break WLM 15 by installing and using an Autohotkey script:
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/

Thanks for your consideration!

Along with what the others have suggested, you can uninstall
WLM 2011 and install WLM 2009 instead, which handles quoting
a lot better:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?
FamilyID=56883de5-2024-4631-806e-757693072a1c

[or use http://tinyurl.com/25zfouw which redirects to the above]

 

[Ken Blake]

Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.

One of the main reasons for leaving things as they are is that it lets
you have two versions (one 32-bit and one 64-bit) of the same program,
both with the same name.

You probably don't have a lot of such duplicates, but one that you do
have is Internet Explorer.

 

[Dominique]

Stan Brown <[email protected]> écrivait

How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation?

<snip>

One example would be music production software where 32 bits plugins (audio
effects or virtual instruments) would run better on a 32 bits host. Using
32 bits plugins on a 64 bits host requires one more software layer which
could cause higher latency (not good for virtual instruments) or other
problems, there might even be complete incompatibilities issues.

On the other hand if someone doesn't use 32 bits plugins in a project, he
might be better to use a 64 bits host for higher memory access which can be
useful in music production.

It's a per project context situation.

 

[Stan Brown]

One example would be music production software where 32 bits plugins (audio
effects or virtual instruments) would run better on a 32 bits host. Using
32 bits plugins on a 64 bits host requires one more software layer which
could cause higher latency (not good for virtual instruments) or other
problems, there might even be complete incompatibilities issues.

That's an example of why a program may need 32-bit and 64-bit
versions. I don't see how it's an example of needing both versions
within the same installation of Windows.

 

[Dominique]

That's an example of why a program may need 32-bit and 64-bit
versions. I don't see how it's an example of needing both versions
within the same installation of Windows.

OK, let's say I have a project that I absolutely want to use that 32 bits
virtual instrument that has problems in a 64 bits host (the program), I
will run the 32 bits host (program) so I can use my instrument.

Another day, I have another project, let's say RAP or Techno~Dance that
uses a lot of audio loops (those are usually used in RAM), I would want to
have access to as much RAM possible. In that case I would run the 64 bits
version of the program.

So I need both versions of the program (32 and 64 bits) to be installed at
the same time, sometimes I use the 32 bits and at other times I use the 64
bits.

I wouldn't create a dual-boot for that, I would simply install both 32 and
64 in the 64 bits version of Windows and I would use the one I need for my
actual project.

 

[Joe Morris]

I'm not blaming the messenger here, but that seems an eminently silly
design decision. As you say, Windows knows how to tell whether a
given program is 32- or 64-bit.

How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows?

A quick check of my production Win7 Enterprise 64-bit system shows 321
executables (*.exe) that are common to c:\windows\syswow64 and either
c:\windows (5) or c:\windows\system32 (316).

The dual-mode components would be required if they can be invoked from
either a 32-bit or 64-bit application and run in the application's address
space.

And there's at least one system-level interface where for whatever reason
(which may be legitimate) the system doesn't check the bitness of an
executable: screen savers. Last year I needed to write a screensaver to
replace the antique "winexit.scr" (how old is winexit? It uses the
"win.ini" interface for its configuration data, even though that's shimmed
into the Registry). I wrote it as a 32-bit application but out of habit put
it into C:\Windows\System32 - and it blew up. Moving the .scr file to
syswow64 fixed the problem. (Interestingly, all of the screen savers
packaged with Win7 are present in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.)

[remapping 32-bit Registry nodes]

This same silliness carries over into the Registry, where you have
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\(proramname) for 64-bit programs and
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\SysWOW6432\(programname) for 32-bit
programs. In theory there's supposed to be some kind of mapping to
make that transparent to applications, but if that actually exists
then it doesn't work in REGEDIT.

But REGEDIT doesn't *use* the Registry (OK; it does but not much) - its
function is to edit the Registry, and for good reason needs to display it as
it really is, and not cross-map the nodes. Incidentally, REG.EXE in XP and
Vista apparently does the cross-mapping if you use the 32-bit version (see
KB948698) but I've never had a need to use a 32-bit version of REG with a
64-bit system so I don't know how the Win7 version behaves.

Joe

 

[Wolf K]

I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there
are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and
C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files
folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?

On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case.

On a 32 bit OS install, only one of those folders exists. That's
because you can only run 32 bit code in a 32 bit OS.

You got two folders, because your OS is 64 bit.[...]

Don't even try to change it.

 

[Good Guy]

How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

You are missing the point here. The second folder (x86) is to install
32 bit version; while the main 64 bit folder is program files. There
are some people, me included, who are still running some 32 bit
applications and so there are installed in its correct location (x86
folder).

Adobe Photoshop comes in both versions and so both versions are
installed and so you are likely to find it in two locations.

The reason for having two folders to keep things separate so that they
don't get corrupted, presumably they share the same file names.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about this until 64 bit
becomes the 'de-facto' standard and all applications become 64 bit. In
the meantime we need to have two different folders and bigger hard disks
to store both versions.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

I don't know about the motivation, but I do know that, by default,
Microsoft arranges to install both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of
Internet Explorer in a 64-bit Windows.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If ain't broken, don't try to fix it.

You are directly contradicting the advice of one of my favorite bumper
stickers:

"If it ain't broke, break it"

Not sure why I find it so compelling. Maybe it fits the history of my
attempts at fixing things.

 

[Joe Morris]

On 23/09/2012 14:23, Stan Brown wrote:

You are missing the point here. The second folder (x86) is to install 32
bit version; while the main 64 bit folder is program files. There are
some people, me included, who are still running some 32 bit applications
and so there are installed in its correct location (x86 folder).

Although I disagree with Stan's opinion on having both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application on the system, his question wasn't why there are
two Program Files folders (that was the question the OP asked); Stan was
asking why a user would ever need to install both.

The OP wisely took the advice in our responses and now understands that
combining the two Program Files folders would be a Very Bad Idea, but the
discussion of why a user might need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application continues.

Joe

 

[Good Guy]

The OP wisely took the advice in our responses and now understands that
combining the two Program Files folders would be a Very Bad Idea, but the
discussion of why a user might need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application continues.

One reason I can think of is the file compatibility. For example, when
I create a file in Photoshop 64 bit version, I can't e-mail it to
somebody who is still running 32 bit version of Photoshop. This creates
lots of problems when you want somebody to help you with the editing of
the file unless, of course, both parties are on the same platform and
using the same versions.

 

[Char Jackson]

One reason I can think of is the file compatibility. For example, when
I create a file in Photoshop 64 bit version, I can't e-mail it to
somebody who is still running 32 bit version of Photoshop. This creates
lots of problems when you want somebody to help you with the editing of
the file unless, of course, both parties are on the same platform and
using the same versions.

Thanks for the heads up. My spouse uses 64bit PS at home and 32bit PS
at work, and brings her work projects home most evenings to work on
them here. After about a year, no compatibility problems so far, so I
have to ask: What specific file format are you referring to, and
what's in the file that indicates compatibility with only 32bit or
64bit systems?