Program Files (x86)

I have 2 Program Files folders, with and without the designation
(x86). What's the difference. Everything seems to work in either
location. I'd prefer things simple and to have only 1.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:00:42 -0400, SteveGG wrote:

I have 2 Program Files folders, with and without the designation (x86).
What's the difference. Everything seems to work in either location. I'd
prefer things simple and to have only 1.

See the answer in the other newsgroup where you multi-posted.

Your desire for "simple" doesn't apply. When you read the answer you will
understand.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:00:42 -0400, SteveGG
wrote:

I have 2 Program Files folders, with and without the designation
(x86). What's the difference. Everything seems to work in either
location. I'd prefer things simple and to have only 1.


Answered in another newsgroup. Please do not send the same message
separately to two or more newsgroups. Doing so makes many of us have
to read it multiple times, and gets you poorer results, because
someone who reads it in one group may not get to see the answers in
another group and correct any errors he may find there.

If you must get it to two newsgroups, please do it by crossposting.

SteveGG wrote:
I have 2 Program Files folders, with and without the designation
(x86). What's the difference. Everything seems to work in either
location. I'd prefer things simple and to have only 1.


How many times must you be told the answer? On 64-bit windows systems

"C:\Programs Files" is the default location for 64-bit applications

"C:\Programs Files (x86)" is the default location for 32-bit applications

set | findstr "^Program"
ProgramData=C:\ProgramData
ProgramFiles=C:\Program Files
ProgramFiles(x86)=C:\Program Files (x86)
ProgramW6432=C:\Program Files


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

OK everyone, sorry for posting multiple groups ( only 2 actually ) and
multiple times. Answer seems to be that they are intended for 32 bit
and 64 bit programs. Yet everything ( both ) seem to work in either,
so is there any functional difference other than labelling ? Is there
any harm running the wrong type application in either ? Someone in the
7 group commented that it was only for the convenience of developers.

SteveGG wrote:
OK everyone, sorry for posting multiple groups ( only 2 actually ) and
multiple times. Answer seems to be that they are intended for 32 bit
and 64 bit programs. Yet everything ( both ) seem to work in either,
so is there any functional difference other than labelling ? Is there
any harm running the wrong type application in either ? Someone in the
7 group commented that it was only for the convenience of developers.


Do not understand your silly endeavor. Why do you care? As long as you
install it where your start menu shortcuts are correctly pointed what is
the diff?

I can tell you one situation where you could run into trouble
consolidating all applications into "Program Files" is when you install
BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an application. Yes there are times
when you would want both. I for example have both 32-bit and 64-bit
versions of my Corel Photo-PAINT installed for a very simple reason. My
collection of third-party plugins are 32-bit and only work in the 32-bit
version. Also many scanners only work within 32-bit applications.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Do not understand your silly endeavor. Why do you care? As long as you
install it where your start menu shortcuts are correctly pointed what is
the diff?

I just like things neat and orderly but more importantly to understand
what's going on.

I can tell you one situation where you could run into trouble
consolidating all applications into "Program Files" is when you install
BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an application. Yes there are times
when you would want both. I for example have both 32-bit and 64-bit
versions of my Corel Photo-PAINT installed for a very simple reason. My
collection of third-party plugins are 32-bit and only work in the 32-bit
version. Also many scanners only work within 32-bit applications.

Actually I have a lot of personal software that I developed way back
in Quick Basic 4.5 and Visual Basic 3, that won't run in any Windows
version after XP ( or there about ). I have a Virtual Machine ( Box )
running with XP just for these. Works great.

I don't intend to NOT have Program Files (x86), but to keep it for odd
other cases, and for when new apps refuse to go into anything else.

SteveGG wrote:

Do not understand your silly endeavor. Why do you care? As long as you
install it where your start menu shortcuts are correctly pointed what is
the diff?

I just like things neat and orderly but more importantly to understand
what's going on.
shared DILL
Well having 32-bit apps in path and 64-bit in another is one neat and
orderly way to understand what's going on. MS's choice of names maybe
debatable except maybe the system default remains "Program Files" so for
64-bit systems the legacy apps move to another name. The thing is on
64-bit systems you have two different backend shared DLL paths Windows32
and SysWOW64 so merging your "Program Files" directory does not make
much sense.

What would have made sense would have been if MS had removed spaces from
the application paths like they finally did with user profiles.

c:\Programs
c:\Programs32


I can tell you one situation where you could run into trouble
consolidating all applications into "Program Files" is when you install
BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an application. Yes there are times
when you would want both. I for example have both 32-bit and 64-bit
versions of my Corel Photo-PAINT installed for a very simple reason. My
collection of third-party plugins are 32-bit and only work in the 32-bit
version. Also many scanners only work within 32-bit applications.

Actually I have a lot of personal software that I developed way back
in Quick Basic 4.5 and Visual Basic 3, that won't run in any Windows
version after XP ( or there about ). I have a Virtual Machine ( Box )
running with XP just for these. Works great.

This issue was with the switch from 32-bit to 64-bit, the 16-bit
compatibility layer was the victim.


I don't intend to NOT have Program Files (x86), but to keep it for odd
other cases, and for when new apps refuse to go into anything else.


Again why Bother? By default Windows will automatically put 32-bit
applications in 'C:\Program Files (x86)\' and look for DLLs in
'C:\Windows\SysWOW64'. And for 64-bit applications will automatically go
to 'C:\Program Files\' and look for DLLs in 'C:\Windows\System32\'. If a
program's installer is poorly setup, especially legacy applications
before 64-bit adoption, Windows automatically adjusts to put things in
the new proper locations. Why chance on possible breaking an application
by manually moving it?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 11/09/2017 19:31, SteveGG wrote:
I don't intend to NOT have Program Files (x86), but to keep it for odd
other cases, and for when new apps refuse to go into anything else.


Did you not see the answer to why they exist?

"Program Files" is for 64 bit software
"Program Files (x86)" is for 32 bit software

Why would you want to make your Windows installation weird and non
standard for no good reason?

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:01:15 +0100, Brian Gregory
wrote:

On 11/09/2017 19:31, SteveGG wrote:
I don't intend to NOT have Program Files (x86), but to keep it for odd
other cases, and for when new apps refuse to go into anything else.


Did you not see the answer to why they exist?

"Program Files" is for 64 bit software
"Program Files (x86)" is for 32 bit software



Why would you want to make your Windows installation weird and non
standard for no good reason?



You asked and answered your own question in the same sentence. g