SOLVED Folder Program Files
- Thread starter BSomers
- Start date
Program folders
The seller of my new computers seems to have distributed programs arbitrarily. Some are present in both folders, on both machines. All seem to function properly. Should I redistribute them - and change a host of shortcuts?
How can I tell which are 64-bit programs?
Many thanks for that. X86 seems to be a very ill-chosen designation.
The seller of my new computers seems to have distributed programs arbitrarily. Some are present in both folders, on both machines. All seem to function properly. Should I redistribute them - and change a host of shortcuts?
How can I tell which are 64-bit programs?
Elmer BeFuddled
Resident eejit
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 251
The 64bit programs will be in the Programs folder. 32 bit will be put in the Programs (x86) folder. You then get things like Photoshop which will go in both. If, like me, you have Photoshop plugins that are only 32bit compatible, you have to force Photoshop to only use the 32bit install.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 362
X86 isn't an ill-chosen designation. X86 is the name of the instruction set that the world's 32-bit processors run on. An instruction set is the lowest possible level of a processor, which truly defines how a CPU is supposed to work.
Think of it as DNA. No matter how wildly different one cell is from another, they are ultimately governed by DNA at their lowest level. So it goes with CPUs, and it has been that way for 30 years or more.
Today's 64-bit processors extend the x86 instruction set with a group of instructions called x86-64. AMD invented that technology for their Athlon 64 processors, and Intel later licensed it for the Core 2 Duo. Intel calls their implementation EMT64.
Now, as for Windows, it organizes applications by x86 ("Program Files (x86)") and x86-64 ("Program Files") because that is the most efficient way to do things. Logical categorization works for people, and it works for PCs, too. Don't try to reorder anything.
But x86 goes farther back than 32-bit. Thus poorly chosen.
I have some programs in both folders, which doesn't make much sense. How to decide where individual programs belong? Windows by itself, doesn't seem to organize anything at all!
I also have 16-bit programs, created under Windows 3.11, that run on 32-bit systems,.but not on 64-bit. Innovation as seen by Microsoft, I guess!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 362
x86 does go back farther than 32-bit, but that is immaterial, as the x86 ISA 32-bit instruction set. Calling it "Program Files (x86)" is indeed one of a few proper names to call 32-bit applications.
Programs install in both folders as their binaries dictate: some applications use a mixture of 32-bit and 64-bit files, which is why they go into both folders.
And finally, 16-bit applications don't run on 64-bit because 64-bit OSes have no way to address 16-bit applications. This is true of Linux, MacOS and Windows. It's not a Microsoft thing.
Programs install in both folders as their binaries dictate: some applications use a mixture of 32-bit and 64-bit files, which is why they go into both folders.
And finally, 16-bit applications don't run on 64-bit because 64-bit OSes have no way to address 16-bit applications. This is true of Linux, MacOS and Windows. It's not a Microsoft thing.
Thanks again. The assumption then, is that the install-programs decide where to place various routines? And that Windows treats them differently, depending on the folder from which they are fetched?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 362
This article explains it quite nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW64
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 9,361
- Reaction score
- 1,587
Many thanks. That is a clear, carefully-written explanation.
X86 is, as I thought, quite non-specific. It refers to the instruction sets provided by the 8086, 80186, 80286 and 80386 processors. It is now loosely used to designate the instruction set of only the 32-bit 80386 processor and successors, even though several generations of those have no longer included '86' in their names.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 :
As the term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit "x86-16" or from the 64-bit x86-64. Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with older computers or systems, the term x86-64 (or x64) is often used to denote 64-bit software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit.
Sloppy. Obviously, the most non-confused usage would be x86-16, x86-32, and x86-64, for the instruction sets of the corresponding processors and the software written to run on them. But non-confused communication is not characteristic of our times.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 :
As the term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit "x86-16" or from the 64-bit x86-64. Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with older computers or systems, the term x86-64 (or x64) is often used to denote 64-bit software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit.
Sloppy. Obviously, the most non-confused usage would be x86-16, x86-32, and x86-64, for the instruction sets of the corresponding processors and the software written to run on them. But non-confused communication is not characteristic of our times.
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 9,361
- Reaction score
- 1,587
On a 64bit machine only the x86-32 is operational so the -32 is redundant.
As the saying goes, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In other words, it is what it is no matter what you call it.
As the saying goes, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In other words, it is what it is no matter what you call it.