Reputation
Next tag badge:
924/1000 score
271/200 answers
Badges
20 132 261
Impact
~7.7m people reached

Jun
27
comment Why doesn't Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) contain folder system64 like system32 in xp?
So basically, you are saying that they were essentially lazy and didn't bother because they could get away with not doing so? If that's true, then I suppose it has the benefit of avoiding breaking things that are working by avoiding unnecessary change. On the other hand, it also breaks consistence which is definitely useful for complex systems (in fact, making inconsistent exceptions like this adds to the complexity of the system).
Jun
27
comment Why am I missing space on my hard drive in Windows?
I've added an explanation of why you saw 750GB before installing Windows 8. Hope that helps clear things up.
Jun
27
revised Why am I missing space on my hard drive in Windows?
Added explanation for other half of the question.
Jun
27
answered Why am I missing space on my hard drive in Windows?
Jun
27
answered Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
Jun
27
comment Why doesn't Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) contain folder system64 like system32 in xp?
That just reinforces what I said. If going from 16-bit to 32-bit was so program-shatteringly problematic and worse than 32-64, then wouldn't they have had to keep using the system folder instead of creating a new one? If they managed to create system32 in the face of such backward-compatibility challenges then, then why did they "wimp out" with the less challenging migration to 64-bit?
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
They didn't have to jump through these hoops to allow for 32-bit and 16-bit programs on the same system. I don't recall ever seeing a ProgramFiles (16) or some such. Besides, how exactly would a 32-bit program "find a 64-bit DLL and try to load it"? What programs go around hunting for random DLLs in %programfiles%? If it is a shared DLL, then it goes in WinSxS; if it is not shared, then it is up to the programmer to manage their own DLLs. The part about it being done as a convenience for programmers reasonable though.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
@SamuelEdwinWard, then you can call it "experimental". Even so, lets say you have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of IE; what makes it mandatory to keep them in separate top-level folders?
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
And how do %programfiles%, %programfiles(x86)%, or %programw6432% make a difference there? Any shared DLLs go into the single WinSxS directory, and any non-shared DLLs are right there with the executable. This would only matter if for some reason you have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same program installed, and even then, you would keep the 32-bit DLLs with the 32-bit executable and the 64-bit DLL with the 64-bit executable. You can do this like so: %programfiles%\CoolApp\bin\32 and %programfiles%\CoolApp\bin\64`, why the separate top-level folders?
Jun
27
answered Detect Windows Server version 32/64-bit in CLI
Jun
27
comment Detect Windows Server version 32/64-bit in CLI
> How comes this had 0 votes? Maybe because it is not reliable.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
@Diogo, actually, I'm pretty sure I read something a couple of days ago about programs being provided with different operating environments depending on their location, so it's not just a design or philosophical choice, it's an actual architectural one. I'm trying to find the pages now.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
@OliverSalzburg, No quite. The question is why two folders are required, not why there are. In fact, he even bolded it: why is this even necessary? You did not explain why it is necessary and the example I gave (and even your own sarcastic example) just show that it does not have to be done the way it is.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
I don't follow your example; it makes no sense. I gave a perfectly good example of how it could be done. Grab a copy of FreePascal and look at how they structure the directories to support both DOS and Windows versions in the same folder. Also, in regards to But that would require you to manually make the decision. If the user is a novice, then they are using an installer which does the logic work. Besides, this is assuming they have any reason to install both versions in the first place. Only devs and testers (i.e., advanced users) would/should be using both.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
If the user is a novice, then I highly doubt they would be running both versions. In fact, even advanced users will rarely ever run both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of a program. If there is a 64-bit version available and the system is 64-bit, then (sane) people are expected to use the 64-bit version; there is no reasonable excuse to install or run the 32-bit version unless you are a developer and doing testing. Of course if the 64-bit version is experimental, then one would expect non-devs/testers to use only the 32-bit version and uninstall it when the 64-bit version is ready.
Jun
27
comment Why doesn't Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) contain folder system64 like system32 in xp?
Um, they didn't exactly worry about backwards compatibility when they created the system32 folder. Yes, the older system folder still exists for any old programs that relied on it, but they created the new one anyway. I don't see why they could not do the same here: leave the system32 folder for any old programs that use it, and have the new stuff go in system64.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
Who makes that decision? The program's installer would allow you to install one or the other or both and would install them as necessary; e.g., %programfiles%\CoolApp\bin\32, %programfiles%\CoolApp\bin\64, %programfiles\CoolApp\html`, etc. This is how it was when installing both DOS and Windows versions of programs like FreePascal; so I don't see why it would have to be any different for 32-/64-bit.
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
That doesn't explain it. Who exactly is using the environment variable and why would it care whether a program is 32-bit or 64-bit?
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
I learned the reason for this recently when I answered a question about determining the architecture from the command-prompt. I'll see if I can find the relevant links...
Jun
27
comment Why does 64-bit Windows need a separate “Program Files (x86)” folder?
But why does it have to put it in different folders? Windows is already fully capable of determining the architecture of an executable by looking at the PE header. Why can it not load the appropriate environment when it loads the executable?