If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP.
I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go into Program Files. Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)? -- -------------------------------------------- Dick Baker (contact via http://goon.org/contact.php) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
On 09/11/2010 19:55, Dick Baker wrote:
Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP. I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go into Program Files. Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)? From "Windows 7 Inside Out": 64-bit programs will be installed, by default, in subfolders of the Program Files folder (%ProgramFiles%), but 32-bit programs will land in subfolders of a separate folder called Program Files (x86). -- Jeff |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
?Hi, Dick.
Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't insist that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install them into the right folder. ;) When I first saw PF86 in WinXP x64 about 5 years ago it confused me, too. And before I got it straightened out, I had already installed several big 32-bit apps (the Office suite, for example), overriding the defaults and insisting that they install into Program Files. With no guidance available at that time, my assumption was that this NEW PF86 folder was for NEW 64-bit apps. It was months later when I learned that the "x86" referred to the 8086/80286/80486, etc. line of Intel CPUs - all 32-bit. By then, my folders were so confused that I had to just install all my apps again - into the right places this time. The reason for the two PF folders, as you probably know, is so that 64-bit Windows (WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and server versions) can properly associate the apps with the infrastructure (dlls, drives, etc.) for them. You apparently are running 64-bit Win7, because you'll never see PF86 in 32-bit Win7. But 64-bit Win7 is smart enough to recognize older apps and guide them into PF86 - unless you (mis)guide them into the wrong PF folder. But watch carefully during the installation, just to be sure. ;^} RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10) Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3502.0922) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1 RC "Dick Baker" wrote in message ... Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP. I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go into Program Files. Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)? -- -------------------------------------------- Dick Baker |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
"R. C. White" wrote in
ecom: ?Hi, Dick. Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't insist that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install them into the right folder. ;) Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially since I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of C:\PF. -- -------------------------------------------- Dick Baker (contact via http://goon.org/contact.php) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
"Dick Baker" seesig4address wrote in message ... Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP. I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go into Program Files. Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)? I put them where I like -- www.myconeyislandmemories.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:51:03 -0600, Dick Baker wrote:
"R. C. White" wrote in ecom: ?Hi, Dick. Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't insist that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install them into the right folder. ;) Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially since I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of C:\PF. Those C:\SomeProgram guys are bad actors, in my view. Even in 32-bit systems, they are overriding what Windows normally does, apparently by overriding or not using the standard Windows mechanisms. Some of them won't work right if you get a chance to make your own choice and take advantage of it... I hereby growl at them :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
"Dick Baker" seesig4address wrote:
"R. C. White" wrote: Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't insist that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install them into the right folder. ;) Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially since I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of C:\PF. The target folder used by a setup program on a 64-bit Windows system will *usually* pick the correct PF/PF(x86) folder, but that's not guaranteed. It all depends on the design of the setup program. Most recently released applications (for some undefined but relatively large value of "recent") are aware of the way that 64-bit Windows systems split the PF folders but if you're trying to convince an antique application to install it might have been designed before anyone bothered with 64-bit systems, meaning that "%SystemDrive%\Program Files" or "%ProgramFiles%" (or worse, "C:\Progra~1") is assumed. The only (sort-of) good thing is that the really old stuff has a good chance of being 16-bit Windows applications, which 64-bit Windows will refuse to run. Joe Morris |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
Especially since I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of C:\PF. Yes, not normal but it does happen. I recently purchased a PC flight simulation game called War Birds Dogfight which was released at the end of *2009*, and surprisingly, it is installed under C:\ instead of PF(x86). This is the only program in recent years that I have experienced such behavior, so yes, there are some programs still doing so and Windows may not always direct to the proper destinations. "Dick Baker" seesig4address wrote in message ... "R. C. White" wrote in ecom: ?Hi, Dick. Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't insist that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install them into the right folder. ;) Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially since I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of C:\PF. -- -------------------------------------------- Dick Baker (contact via http://goon.org/contact.php) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:55:36 -0600, Dick Baker wrote:
Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP. I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go into Program Files. Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)? I think if you try the installer you will see that it wants to go into (x86). What is a mystery to me is why we have separate Program Files and Program Files (x86) folders. After all, Windows knows which programs must be run in compatibility mode, so what is the need to put them in a separate folder? It seems redundant. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:02:03 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:
What is a mystery to me is why we have separate Program Files and Program Files (x86) folders. After all, Windows knows which programs must be run in compatibility mode, so what is the need to put them in a separate folder? It seems redundant. And I see that R. C. White answered that very question: The reason for the two PF folders, as you probably know, is so that 64-bit Windows (WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and server versions) can properly associate the apps with the infrastructure (dlls, drives, etc.) for them. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:04:08 -0500, Stan Brown
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:02:03 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: What is a mystery to me is why we have separate Program Files and Program Files (x86) folders. After all, Windows knows which programs must be run in compatibility mode, so what is the need to put them in a separate folder? It seems redundant. And I see that R. C. White answered that very question: The reason for the two PF folders, as you probably know, is so that 64-bit Windows (WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and server versions) can properly associate the apps with the infrastructure (dlls, drives, etc.) for them. So what happens (or doesn't happen) when a program is installed in the wrong directory? This happened the other day when I installed an old 32-bit program. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?
"Stan Brown" wrote in message t... On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:02:03 -0500, Stan Brown wrote: What is a mystery to me is why we have separate Program Files and Program Files (x86) folders. After all, Windows knows which programs must be run in compatibility mode, so what is the need to put them in a separate folder? It seems redundant. And I see that R. C. White answered that very question: The reason for the two PF folders, as you probably know, is so that 64-bit Windows (WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and server versions) can properly associate the apps with the infrastructure (dlls, drives, etc.) for them. And while I don't have any citations to refute the above, it doesn't make sense to me. The OS has had no problems for years doing just what is suggested above despite many people installing apps in entirely custom locations (lie in the case of server builds I put applications that run on the server on D:, usually rooted since it is a dedicated APP drive) and Windows has no problems at all. The reason (going form memory here) is for cases (few at that) where one might have to install 2 of the same program, one of them 32b and one 64b. Obviously the 2 can't occupy the same space so they need a separate tree. Thinking forward to the future it made sense for the 64b flavor to get the "standard" folder structure while the older/legacy 32b version get the "odd structure" in the hopes of in the future being phased out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|