Program Files & Program Files (x86)???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron O'Brien
  • Start date Start date
R

Ron O'Brien

Having just installed Vista Ultimate 64bit I'm left wondering why so much
space has been taken up on my hard drives by what appears to be a repeat of
the program files folder.

I have one folder named Program Files and another named Program Files(x86)
both appear to contain the same files although the (x86) version seems to be
the one that programs go into - I've just installed WinZip which appears in
there.

So what's with this crazy method of filling up your hard drive - has
Microsoft bought shares in a hard drive manufacturer?
 
Ron said:
Having just installed Vista Ultimate 64bit I'm left wondering why so much
space has been taken up on my hard drives by what appears to be a repeat
of the program files folder.

I have one folder named Program Files and another named Program Files(x86)
both appear to contain the same files although the (x86) version seems to
be the one that programs go into - I've just installed WinZip which
appears in there.

So what's with this crazy method of filling up your hard drive - has
Microsoft bought shares in a hard drive manufacturer?
Click to expand...

The x86 directory is fir 32-bit programs and the plain Program Files
directory is for 64-bit programs. WinZip is a 32-bit program so that is why
it goes into the x86 directory.

Instead of assuming that what you see is a "crazy method", it would better
serve you to do some reading about 64-bit operating systems.

There is a newsgroup for Vista 64-bit, too. Find it here:

http://aumha.org/nntp.htm - list of MS newsgroups

Malke
 
..
Instead of assuming that what you see is a "crazy method", it would better
serve you to do some reading about 64-bit operating systems.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your patronising comment - but it still seems a crazy waste of
space :-)
 
Ron O'Brien said:
.

Thank you for your patronising comment - but it still seems a crazy waste
of space :-)
Click to expand...


32 and 64bit are two different platforms, and the 32bit programs run in a
64bit environment have to be treated differently, hence the two folders.

As Malke suggested to you, people should read up on the 'benefits' of 64bit
before blindly assuming that it is just a generally faster version of 32bit
(which it isn't incidentally).

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Ron said:
.

Thank you for your patronising comment - but it still seems a crazy waste
of space :-)
Click to expand...

Sorry you took it as patronizing. Actually, I was trying to be nice since my
first impulse was to comment on your assumption that this behavior was
caused by Microsoft in conspiracy with hard drive mftrs. That comment would
not have been as polite as merely telling you that reading up on what a
64-bit operating system is would be a good step for you.

I stand by my advice. If you're going to use a 64-bit operating system, you
should understand what it is, what it does, and what it doesn't do.

End of story for me.

Malke
 
If you check the actual space being used you will probably find that the 64
bit Program Files contains only directory information for the actual 32 bit
files that are in the 32 bit program files folder. The amount of space is
probably minimal and as more and more of your 32 bit programs are replaced
by 64 bit programs the number of entries in the 32bit program files will
decrease.
 
Mike Hall - MVP said:
As Malke suggested to you, people should read up on the 'benefits' of
64bit before blindly assuming that it is just a generally faster version
of 32bit (which it isn't incidentally).

--
Click to expand...
Yes 64bit speed is a strange misconception, I suppose people associate speed
with efficiency, it seems to me that any speed gain apparent by 64bit has
more to do with the amount of RAM installed possibly

Ron
 
Ron O'Brien said:
Yes 64bit speed is a strange misconception, I suppose people associate
speed with efficiency, it seems to me that any speed gain apparent by
64bit has more to do with the amount of RAM installed possibly

Ron
Click to expand...


64bit relates to the chunk size of data able to be moved around. In
principle, this should improve speed by a factor of 2 over 32bit. If
applications move a lot of data around, assuming that they are 64bit, there
will be speed improvements. Most applications in general use don't move much
around at all.

Eventually, everything will be 64bit, and by that time, commercial stuff
will be 128bit, and the cycle starts again..

Unless you are big into photo, video or sound editing, or into CAD, there is
not a huge argument for using 64bit at this time.

I would give it a whirl just for the sake of it, but I use OneNote 2007 to
archive mail. There is no way to do this if I use Vista 64bit, and there
will not be until the next incarnation of Office. I don't do anything which
specifically requires more than 4gb, so I stay with 32bit. Bragging rights
are worthless if simple stuff can no longer be done.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
SCSIraidGURU said:
I have run across many 32-bit apps that can't install to Program Files
(x86). Adobe Photoshop CS2 is one of them. They want Program Files.
Why did Microsoft come up with adding ( ) to a directory name is beyond
me.
Click to expand...
It may not be able to use Program Files (x86) as a default, but what
happens if you browse it to that directory? I always use browse on
program installations to make sure they go where I want them to,
and so I know where they went.
 
Malke, You can't blame Ron for his assumption that 'perhaps' the two folders
are not needed (and they are probably not or at least could be better
defined) - Microsoft are famous for their inability to compact software in
favour of producing bloat-ware

Paul
 
PY said:
Malke, You can't blame Ron for his assumption that 'perhaps' the two
folders are not needed (and they are probably not or at least could be
better defined) - Microsoft are famous for their inability to compact
software in favour of producing bloat-ware

Paul
Click to expand...


It would be better for some if they ceased to worry about what was under the
hood and concentrate on running whatever applications are installed.. :-)


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Back
Top