2

A decade ago, Symantec created the Norton Commander 2.0 for the 32-bits Windows system. I bought it back then and amazingly, it still works great on my Vista-64 bits system with Quadcore processor.

Symantec stopped any further development of NC and the above Wiki pagina lists plenty of alternatives. These all work on Linux, OS-X or 32-bits versions of Windows. Which is fine, but I don't consider them valid replacements. I want a 64-bits version which works very similar to NC, especially when viewing, copying or moving files. Total Commander is close, but not 64-bits.

Btw, it doesn't need to be free. Shareware or plain commercial software is fine too.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Why do you absolutely want 64-bits? 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit programs. You won't actually gain anything by having this type of program be 64-bits.
    – Ben S
    Sep 23, 2009 at 20:39
  • NC 2.0 works fine in 32-bits mode and does exactly what I want. The gain would come from it's internal file viewer which can use more RAM on a 64-bits system and thus the viewer might perform faster.
    – Wim ten Brink
    Sep 23, 2009 at 20:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Far Manager has an x64 version.

FWIW, viewer doesn't load whole files into memory so it's irrelevant. So are basic file operations. It's still not clear why you need an x64 version so badly.

Improve this answer
2
  • +1 for FAR. as far as split windows file managers are concerned, it doesn't get ANY closer to the legendary Norton Commander :)
    – Molly7244
    Sep 23, 2009 at 21:08
  • NC was and still is legendary for it's performance. And when NC changed from x16 to x32, there were plenty of people who wondered why one would upgrade to the x32 version while the x16 version works just as well... Maybe it's the same reasons why I would pick a certain couch for my living room: because it matches the environment...
    – Wim ten Brink
    Sep 23, 2009 at 21:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.