64 using 32 undertaker 5/19/2007 5:26:37 PM trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it defaults to the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 mode, I shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like buying a new OS and it defaults to the old technology???

Re: 64 using 32 Theo <theo[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> 5/19/2007 5:37:03 PM You really need to take the time to become more familiar with Win XP x64. Win x64 does indeed install 32-bit programs to the x86 folder and you should not be messing around deleting it! Just because a program says it will run on Win x64 doesn't mean the program is 100% 64-bit. A lot of them only have certain modules 64-bit for computability purposes. You sound like you have no idea what you're doing, nor why! undertaker wrote: [Quoted Text] > trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it defaults to > the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. > > same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... > > it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 mode, I > shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like buying a new > OS and it defaults to the old technology???

Re: 64 using 32 "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> 5/19/2007 7:16:31 PM x86 folders are your friends. As Theo says, don't mess with x86 folders. They are essential on a 64bit system. 64bit programs are not required for running on XP Pro x64. Almost all productivity software is still 32bit and 64bit versions would not add to their functionality. Where you need 64bit software is with programs that work closely with the OS and the hardware, such as cd burning programs, etc. As far as a 64bit OS is concerned, 32bit software is just a subset of the software such an OS can run. "undertaker" <undertaker[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:918E6D30-6FE1-4CB0-AA1C-A434F78C05AB[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it defaults > to > the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. > > same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... > > it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 mode, I > shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like buying a > new > OS and it defaults to the old technology???

Re: 64 using 32 "Tom Ferguson" <tom.msmvp[ at ]gmail.com> 5/19/2007 8:35:59 PM I certainly have no quarrel with your views and statements about 32 bit programs on MS 64 bit systems whether XP 64 or Vista 64. However, it might be interesting to note that these 64 bit systems run 32 bit applications using the "Windows On Windows" (WOW) sub-system. For those who might not be familiar with it, basically it is a 32 bit system emulator. In fact, it works so well that these 32 bit applications typically run as well or better on it than on a native 32 bit system on a 32 bit processor. In fact, it works better than the Windows XP WOW system (which is designed to run 16 bit applications on this 32 bit system). So, yes. 32 bit applications run quite well. However, while they are not required, as 64 bit applications are developed and released, they will probably reveal to us the full benefit of such 64 bit applications running on top of a 64 bit OS which, in turn, is running on appropriate hardware without invoking the WOW sub-system. Just my view. All the best. Tom Ferguson MSMVP Windows Shell/User "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message news:3674BC64-501A-4850-9773-EC8B504AA598[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > x86 folders are your friends. As Theo says, don't mess with x86 > folders. They are essential on a 64bit system. > > 64bit programs are not required for running on XP Pro x64. Almost all > productivity software is still 32bit and 64bit versions would not add > to their functionality. Where you need 64bit software is with > programs that work closely with the OS and the hardware, such as cd > burning programs, etc. As far as a 64bit OS is concerned, 32bit > software is just a subset of the software such an OS can run. > > "undertaker" <undertaker[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:918E6D30-6FE1-4CB0-AA1C-A434F78C05AB[ at ]microsoft.com... >> trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it >> defaults to >> the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. >> >> same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... >> >> it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 >> mode, I >> shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like >> buying a new >> OS and it defaults to the old technology??? >

Re: 64 using 32 "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> 5/19/2007 10:02:10 PM WOW64 is a very thin layer. As I recall about 1MB. It is not an emulator in the usual sense. 32bit code runs natively on 64bit processors but the APIs, devices drivers, and other OS calls require 64bit code. That is where WOW64 comes in. It is very light. "Tom Ferguson" <tom.msmvp[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23m7vUVlmHHA.4120[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... [Quoted Text] >I certainly have no quarrel with your views and statements about 32 bit >programs on MS 64 bit systems whether XP 64 or Vista 64. However, it might >be interesting to note that these 64 bit systems run 32 bit applications >using the "Windows On Windows" (WOW) sub-system. For those who might not be >familiar with it, basically it is a 32 bit system emulator. In fact, it >works so well that these 32 bit applications typically run as well or >better on it than on a native 32 bit system on a 32 bit processor. In fact, >it works better than the Windows XP WOW system (which is designed to run 16 >bit applications on this 32 bit system). > > So, yes. 32 bit applications run quite well. However, while they are not > required, as 64 bit applications are developed and released, they will > probably reveal to us the full benefit of such 64 bit applications running > on top of a 64 bit OS which, in turn, is running on appropriate hardware > without invoking the WOW sub-system. > > Just my view. > All the best. > Tom Ferguson > MSMVP > Windows Shell/User > > > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message > news:3674BC64-501A-4850-9773-EC8B504AA598[ at ]microsoft.com... >> x86 folders are your friends. As Theo says, don't mess with x86 folders. >> They are essential on a 64bit system. >> >> 64bit programs are not required for running on XP Pro x64. Almost all >> productivity software is still 32bit and 64bit versions would not add to >> their functionality. Where you need 64bit software is with programs that >> work closely with the OS and the hardware, such as cd burning programs, >> etc. As far as a 64bit OS is concerned, 32bit software is just a subset >> of the software such an OS can run. >> >> "undertaker" <undertaker[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:918E6D30-6FE1-4CB0-AA1C-A434F78C05AB[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it >>> defaults to >>> the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. >>> >>> same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... >>> >>> it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 mode, >>> I >>> shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like buying >>> a new >>> OS and it defaults to the old technology??? >> >

RE: 64 using 32 Carlos 5/19/2007 11:08:01 PM Undertaker: If you are in need of truly 64-bit apps, just go to www.start64.com and choose your favourite one. Carlos "undertaker" wrote: [Quoted Text] > trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it defaults to > the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. > > same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... > > it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 mode, I > shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like buying a new > OS and it defaults to the old technology???

Re: 64 using 32 "Tom Ferguson" <tom.msmvp[ at ]gmail.com> 5/20/2007 12:43:51 AM Yes, indeed. WOW for 64 bit Windows is more like a translation layer between 74 and 32 bit calls than an emulator in the formal since but far more efficient than the "thunking" methodology used for WOW on XP 32. Tom "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message news:E0C418F8-078E-45AD-B9D8-89FF4AFCF6A6[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > WOW64 is a very thin layer. As I recall about 1MB. It is not an > emulator in the usual sense. 32bit code runs natively on 64bit > processors but the APIs, devices drivers, and other OS calls require > 64bit code. That is where WOW64 comes in. It is very light. > > "Tom Ferguson" <tom.msmvp[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23m7vUVlmHHA.4120[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>I certainly have no quarrel with your views and statements about 32 >>bit programs on MS 64 bit systems whether XP 64 or Vista 64. However, >>it might be interesting to note that these 64 bit systems run 32 bit >>applications using the "Windows On Windows" (WOW) sub-system. For >>those who might not be familiar with it, basically it is a 32 bit >>system emulator. In fact, it works so well that these 32 bit >>applications typically run as well or better on it than on a native 32 >>bit system on a 32 bit processor. In fact, it works better than the >>Windows XP WOW system (which is designed to run 16 bit applications on >>this 32 bit system). >> >> So, yes. 32 bit applications run quite well. However, while they are >> not required, as 64 bit applications are developed and released, they >> will probably reveal to us the full benefit of such 64 bit >> applications running on top of a 64 bit OS which, in turn, is running >> on appropriate hardware without invoking the WOW sub-system. >> >> Just my view. >> All the best. >> Tom Ferguson >> MSMVP >> Windows Shell/User >> >> >> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message >> news:3674BC64-501A-4850-9773-EC8B504AA598[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> x86 folders are your friends. As Theo says, don't mess with x86 >>> folders. They are essential on a 64bit system. >>> >>> 64bit programs are not required for running on XP Pro x64. Almost >>> all productivity software is still 32bit and 64bit versions would >>> not add to their functionality. Where you need 64bit software is >>> with programs that work closely with the OS and the hardware, such >>> as cd burning programs, etc. As far as a 64bit OS is concerned, >>> 32bit software is just a subset of the software such an OS can run. >>> >>> "undertaker" <undertaker[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>> news:918E6D30-6FE1-4CB0-AA1C-A434F78C05AB[ at ]microsoft.com... >>>> trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it >>>> defaults to >>>> the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. >>>> >>>> same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 >>>> folder... >>>> >>>> it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 >>>> mode, I >>>> shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like >>>> buying a new >>>> OS and it defaults to the old technology??? >>> >> >

Re: 64 using 32 "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> 5/20/2007 1:08:22 AM Exactly. "Tom Ferguson" <tom.msmvp[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message news:uMf3AgnmHHA.4552[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... [Quoted Text] > Yes, indeed. WOW for 64 bit Windows is more like a translation layer > between 74 and 32 bit calls than an emulator in the formal since but far > more efficient than the "thunking" methodology used for WOW on XP 32. > > Tom > > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message > news:E0C418F8-078E-45AD-B9D8-89FF4AFCF6A6[ at ]microsoft.com... >> WOW64 is a very thin layer. As I recall about 1MB. It is not an >> emulator in the usual sense. 32bit code runs natively on 64bit >> processors but the APIs, devices drivers, and other OS calls require >> 64bit code. That is where WOW64 comes in. It is very light. >> >> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.msmvp[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:%23m7vUVlmHHA.4120[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>I certainly have no quarrel with your views and statements about 32 bit >>>programs on MS 64 bit systems whether XP 64 or Vista 64. However, it >>>might be interesting to note that these 64 bit systems run 32 bit >>>applications using the "Windows On Windows" (WOW) sub-system. For those >>>who might not be familiar with it, basically it is a 32 bit system >>>emulator. In fact, it works so well that these 32 bit applications >>>typically run as well or better on it than on a native 32 bit system on a >>>32 bit processor. In fact, it works better than the Windows XP WOW system >>>(which is designed to run 16 bit applications on this 32 bit system). >>> >>> So, yes. 32 bit applications run quite well. However, while they are not >>> required, as 64 bit applications are developed and released, they will >>> probably reveal to us the full benefit of such 64 bit applications >>> running on top of a 64 bit OS which, in turn, is running on appropriate >>> hardware without invoking the WOW sub-system. >>> >>> Just my view. >>> All the best. >>> Tom Ferguson >>> MSMVP >>> Windows Shell/User >>> >>> >>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message >>> news:3674BC64-501A-4850-9773-EC8B504AA598[ at ]microsoft.com... >>>> x86 folders are your friends. As Theo says, don't mess with x86 >>>> folders. They are essential on a 64bit system. >>>> >>>> 64bit programs are not required for running on XP Pro x64. Almost all >>>> productivity software is still 32bit and 64bit versions would not add >>>> to their functionality. Where you need 64bit software is with programs >>>> that work closely with the OS and the hardware, such as cd burning >>>> programs, etc. As far as a 64bit OS is concerned, 32bit software is >>>> just a subset of the software such an OS can run. >>>> >>>> "undertaker" <undertaker[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>> news:918E6D30-6FE1-4CB0-AA1C-A434F78C05AB[ at ]microsoft.com... >>>>> trying to find 64 bit programs, and when I try to install them it >>>>> defaults to >>>>> the program files(x86) folder,even after I deleted the folder. >>>>> >>>>> same issue with IE until I had to manually delete every x86 folder... >>>>> >>>>> it is a problem trying to figure out if a program is in x86 or x64 >>>>> mode, I >>>>> shouldnt even be having this issue when it is a x64 OS. Its like >>>>> buying a new >>>>> OS and it defaults to the old technology??? >>>> >>> >> >