Hi guys
Looking for some answers .
I have Vista Ultimate , I have x64 installed at the present time . I noticed
under C: it lists two program files folders ,
one just plain Program Files (which I presume is the x64 bit folder)
one Program Files x86 (which is what it says I presume)
The x86 folder is 1.55 gig and the other Program Files Folder (Which I asume
is x64) is only 900 MGB .
So does that tell me that most of what is on my pc is still X86 , running in
compatability mode ?
I usually run Vista Ultimate 32 bit , but just had to try this and see if it
would run on my home built pc .
Thanks Guys.

--
Carl G

In general, 32-bit programs install in the Program Files (x86) folder and
64-bit programs install in the Program Files folder. Some programs are
hard-coded to install differently and you may wind up with 32-bit software
in the 64-bit folder. But yes, in general, this means most of your software
(as measured by volume) is 32-bit software.

"Carl G" <cgerving@msnDOTcom> wrote in message
news:BD86EF7E-B785-45CA-8B33-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi guys
> Looking for some answers .
> I have Vista Ultimate , I have x64 installed at the present time . I
> noticed under C: it lists two program files folders ,
> one just plain Program Files (which I presume is the x64 bit folder)
> one Program Files x86 (which is what it says I presume)
> The x86 folder is 1.55 gig and the other Program Files Folder (Which I
> asume is x64) is only 900 MGB .
> So does that tell me that most of what is on my pc is still X86 , running
> in compatability mode ?
> I usually run Vista Ultimate 32 bit , but just had to try this and see if
> it would run on my home built pc .
> Thanks Guys.
>
> --
> Carl G

Thank You Richard
I was just playin around with the 64 bit just to see if my pc would run it
and install my other hardware.
It did it all and never had a real problem .
So I guess it is back to 32 bit , I don't need 8 gigs of memory for what I
do , and that seams like the only real advantage of 64 bit that I can see .
I have 4 gig installed now .
My PC and vista run great , have no problems at all.
Carl G

"Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In general, 32-bit programs install in the Program Files (x86) folder and
> 64-bit programs install in the Program Files folder. Some programs are
> hard-coded to install differently and you may wind up with 32-bit software
> in the 64-bit folder. But yes, in general, this means most of your
> software (as measured by volume) is 32-bit software.
>
> "Carl G" <cgerving@msnDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:BD86EF7E-B785-45CA-8B33-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi guys
>> Looking for some answers .
>> I have Vista Ultimate , I have x64 installed at the present time . I
>> noticed under C: it lists two program files folders ,
>> one just plain Program Files (which I presume is the x64 bit folder)
>> one Program Files x86 (which is what it says I presume)
>> The x86 folder is 1.55 gig and the other Program Files Folder (Which I
>> asume is x64) is only 900 MGB .
>> So does that tell me that most of what is on my pc is still X86 , running
>> in compatability mode ?
>> I usually run Vista Ultimate 32 bit , but just had to try this and see if
>> it would run on my home built pc .
>> Thanks Guys.
>>
>> --
>> Carl G
>

In message <5C824E20-6F31-4039-BA29-(E-Mail Removed)> "Carl G"
<cgerving@msnDOTcom> was claimed to have wrote:

>Thank You Richard
>I was just playin around with the 64 bit just to see if my pc would run it
>and install my other hardware.
>It did it all and never had a real problem .
>So I guess it is back to 32 bit , I don't need 8 gigs of memory for what I
>do , and that seams like the only real advantage of 64 bit that I can see .
>I have 4 gig installed now .
>My PC and vista run great , have no problems at all.

If you don't have any problems, why not stay on x64?

Also, be aware that you won't be able to access all 4GB of your RAM
under x86/32-bit, you'll probably only be able to access around 3.2GB,
although the exact number varies.

Hi Guys
Does windows ever seam to have a problem working with 2 program files
folders under 64 bit ?
Just seams like it would be more complicated compared to 32 bit for windows
..
But I haven't had a problem yet other then I couldn't transfer my pictures
and other personal folders to another pc with easy transfer cable .
Thanks

--
Carl G

"Dave Warren" <dave-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <5C824E20-6F31-4039-BA29-(E-Mail Removed)> "Carl G"
> <cgerving@msnDOTcom> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Thank You Richard
>>I was just playin around with the 64 bit just to see if my pc would run it
>>and install my other hardware.
>>It did it all and never had a real problem .
>>So I guess it is back to 32 bit , I don't need 8 gigs of memory for what
>>I
>>do , and that seams like the only real advantage of 64 bit that I can see
>>.
>>I have 4 gig installed now .
>>My PC and vista run great , have no problems at all.
>
> If you don't have any problems, why not stay on x64?
>
> Also, be aware that you won't be able to access all 4GB of your RAM
> under x86/32-bit, you'll probably only be able to access around 3.2GB,
> although the exact number varies.

I guess that was a dumb question anyway .
Thanks for the info .

--
Carl G

"Carl G" <cgerving@msnDOTcom> wrote in message
news:B9434D2D-B48B-432E-BD80-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Guys
> Does windows ever seam to have a problem working with 2 program files
> folders under 64 bit ?
> Just seams like it would be more complicated compared to 32 bit for
> windows .
> But I haven't had a problem yet other then I couldn't transfer my pictures
> and other personal folders to another pc with easy transfer cable .
> Thanks
>
> --
> Carl G
>
> "Dave Warren" <dave-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message <5C824E20-6F31-4039-BA29-(E-Mail Removed)> "Carl G"
>> <cgerving@msnDOTcom> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>Thank You Richard
>>>I was just playin around with the 64 bit just to see if my pc would run
>>>it
>>>and install my other hardware.
>>>It did it all and never had a real problem .
>>>So I guess it is back to 32 bit , I don't need 8 gigs of memory for what
>>>I
>>>do , and that seams like the only real advantage of 64 bit that I can see
>>>.
>>>I have 4 gig installed now .
>>>My PC and vista run great , have no problems at all.
>>
>> If you don't have any problems, why not stay on x64?
>>
>> Also, be aware that you won't be able to access all 4GB of your RAM
>> under x86/32-bit, you'll probably only be able to access around 3.2GB,
>> although the exact number varies.
>

In message <B9434D2D-B48B-432E-BD80-(E-Mail Removed)> "Carl G"
<cgerving@msnDOTcom> was claimed to have wrote:

>Hi Guys
>Does windows ever seam to have a problem working with 2 program files
>folders under 64 bit ?
>Just seams like it would be more complicated compared to 32 bit for windows

It is a bit more complicated, although mostly due to the few apps out
there that make assumptions about where Program Files is located and
don't use a proper API call to figure it out.

From Windows' point of view there isn't any real practical reason that
applications have to be installed in one specific place, it just
simplifies interactions between multiple applications and makes
administrators' lives easier when the OS lives in one place,
applications live in another location, and user data in another.

Hi Dave
Thanks for the info , I guess I understand that ok .

--
Carl G

"Dave Warren" <dave-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <B9434D2D-B48B-432E-BD80-(E-Mail Removed)> "Carl G"
> <cgerving@msnDOTcom> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Hi Guys
>>Does windows ever seam to have a problem working with 2 program files
>>folders under 64 bit ?
>>Just seams like it would be more complicated compared to 32 bit for
>>windows
>
> It is a bit more complicated, although mostly due to the few apps out
> there that make assumptions about where Program Files is located and
> don't use a proper API call to figure it out.
>
> From Windows' point of view there isn't any real practical reason that
> applications have to be installed in one specific place, it just
> simplifies interactions between multiple applications and makes
> administrators' lives easier when the OS lives in one place,
> applications live in another location, and user data in another.