Win Defender x64

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I downloaded WD x64. When I attempted to run it, msg "Installation Not
Supported by this processor type". I have XP SP2. What's the problem?
 
You have the wrong version for your OS--you just need Windows Defender--the
32-bit version. Re download.
 
Thanks so much for the response. The only reason I attempted the x64 load
was because I got a notice I needed to upgrade. Guess that was the wrong
upgrade. I'll start again at the WD download location.
 
I'd be interested if you can describe exactly what happened on that first
attempt--what was the sequence that got you that particular download.

This has been a pretty common mistake, and the design of the download page
has been modified to try to make it clearer, but any information that could
help others avoid this mistake would be helpful.
Thanks!

--
 
If the technical writers at Ms would read Alan D's or Robin's description
of what it's like as a novice to use this product or try to grasp the
available abbreviated documentation (help?) as spelled out in the below
thread entitled
Defender Version 1593.0 installed at last: first impressions

they might have some inkling of what the problem is. Frankly most of
people who have a computer in 2006 are not enthusiasts and have no clue as
to what "x64" is. Explain it... don't just use the term and expect instant
enlightenment because everyone at the Redmond office uses it all the
time...

Yeah, 64 sounds better than 32... it must be the one we want... I'll bet
it's twice as good at catching anti-spyware... whatever that is.
 
If the technical writers at Ms would read Alan D's or Robin's description
of what it's like as a novice to use this product or try to grasp the
available abbreviated documentation (help?) as spelled out in the below
thread entitled
Defender Version 1593.0 installed at last: first impressions

they might have some inkling of what the problem is. Frankly most of
people who have a computer in 2006 are not enthusiasts and have no clue as
to what "x64" is. Explain it... don't just use the term and expect instant
enlightenment because everyone at the Redmond office uses it all the
time...

Yeah, 64 sounds better than 32... it must be the one we want... I'll bet
it's twice as good at catching anti-spyware... whatever that is.
 
Dave M said:
Frankly most of
people who have a computer in 2006 are not enthusiasts and have no clue as
to what "x64" is.
Click to expand...

Heck guys - I installed it 64 times. Was that wrong?
 
Bill:
I just ran through the same Chinese Firedrill as Lowcountry and I assure you
that the web pages that got me to download WDX64 did not explain what the
"64" referred to and how I tell I am only running at "32" whatever-they-are.
My WD told me there were upgrades available. I went to the page and it was
not clear what I should do. I did not find anything that said "Here is the
update for Windows Defender that the program nagged you about". I fumbled
around and clicked on some things and apparently downloaded something that
verified my version of XP was legit and then something else that seemed to
take me to WD version 1.1.1593 even though the web site said 1.1.1592 was the
latest version. Anyway when that was all done, I noticed this thing at the
bottem of the page that said others had downloaded Windows Defender X64, I
went to that page and read the description, sounded like a better version
that the beta version I had so, according to the instructions, I uninstalled
Windows Defender (beta), downloaded and tried to install X64, got the message
that indicated my Athlon Processor couldn't handle X64, but not why. There
was no hint on the web site as to the problem, so I came to this discussion
site and there in not-so-clear terms was a discussion of my problem. Now I
have to downlaod and reinstall what I had half an hour ago. Thanks for the
confusion MS!
 
Oldwindbreaker said:
Bill:
I just ran through the same Chinese Firedrill as Lowcountry and I assure you
that the web pages that got me to download WDX64 did not explain what the
"64" referred to and how I tell I am only running at "32" whatever-they-are.
My WD told me there were upgrades available. I went to the page and it was
not clear what I should do. I did not find anything that said "Here is the
update for Windows Defender that the program nagged you about". I fumbled
around and clicked on some things and apparently downloaded something that
verified my version of XP was legit and then something else that seemed to
take me to WD version 1.1.1593 even though the web site said 1.1.1592 was the
latest version. Anyway when that was all done, I noticed this thing at the
bottem of the page that said others had downloaded Windows Defender X64, I
went to that page and read the description, sounded like a better version
that the beta version I had so, according to the instructions, I uninstalled
Windows Defender (beta), downloaded and tried to install X64, got the message
that indicated my Athlon Processor couldn't handle X64, but not why. There
was no hint on the web site as to the problem, so I came to this discussion
site and there in not-so-clear terms was a discussion of my problem. Now I
have to downlaod and reinstall what I had half an hour ago. Thanks for the

confusion MS!
Click to expand...

For anyone who still has no idea what "x64" means, here's a good
explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64

Bob Vanderveen
 
I hear you--I'll have to go back and look at the pages--at one point the had
the x64 link pretty well buried, I thought.

--
 
With earlier mechanical machinery, repeating an operation multiple times
resulted in wear patterns that might actually make the thing work better.
I've never had the opportunity to ask an electron whether that works at
their level of being, though!


--
 
Hey--Excellent description--thanks very much. That is probably something
that can be changed.

The technology is confusing--you may very well be running a 64 bit
processor, but if you are running 32-bit windows, you need the 32-bit
version of Defender to go with it. I know a number of techies who run 64
bit versions of either XP, Vista, or both, but it isn't for the average
person yet--hardware drivers, and some software--specifically antivirus and
other antimalware, like Windows Defender--needs to be 64-bit, and vendors
just don't have those available yet in many cases.

--
 
Bill Sanderson MVP said:
With earlier mechanical machinery, repeating an operation multiple times
resulted in wear patterns that might actually make the thing work better.
I've never had the opportunity to ask an electron whether that works at
their level of being, though!
Click to expand...

Whatever it costs the electrons, Bill it's worth it. It's hard to describe
the thrilling sense of freedom of choice, deciding which of the 64 identical
desktop icons to click on each morning.

And when you get all 64 scanning at once, the computer actually rises 2
inches off the surface of the desk - presumably so it can CRUSH any malware
that it finds.
 
Surprised to see all the other messages about this, at least I'm not alone.
I received notice I needed to upgrade; clicked on indicator for upgrade; the
predominent item on the upgrade page was for x64; advised validation
required; went through that process; had to go to alternate validation
method;after that was completed I was returned to the WD.msi page; advised if
you have version 1.1.1592.0, I had 1.1.1347.9, you must remove it; figured I
had to remove my load eventhough it wasn't the one shown; began the download
which on dial-up took 45 mins.; received notice installation not supported.
Trying to decided whether to download WD again, probably another 45min-1hr
process.
 
There are two versions of Defender provided for 32 bit and 64 bit OS. Be sure
to load the correct one. The x64 Defender loaded properly to my Windows XP
x64 OS - just as the Defender x32 version loaded to my x32 Windows XP OS.
 
Yeah--and that 64-bit malware is so big and ugly that it could actually get
properly crushed--not like the slimey, tiny 32-bit stuff.

--
 
Thanks. The x64 version sure doesn't seem prominent to me--but it is also
possible that they've made some changes to the page since you saw it.

Sorry you were mislead--I know the pain of working via dialup.


--
 
Back
Top