C:\Program Files (x86)

[Stewart]

I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are 2
folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program Files;
each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files (programs) in
the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?

[Paul]

Post by Stewart
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are
2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program
Files; each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?

On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case.

On a 32 bit OS install, only one of those folders exists. That's
because you can only run 32 bit code in a 32 bit OS.

You got two folders, because your OS is 64 bit.

*******

Sure, there are a gazillion ways they *could* have implemented a
loader strategy. But they chose this way, for reasons that
aren't apparent.

It is actually possible, to tell apart "PE32" files from "PE32+"
files. So you can tell differences between 32 bit and 64 bit code.
Even the .NET executables have detectable differences. But it's
just cleaner to have two separate places to install to, so that
changes to one, don't affect the other.

Paul

[Stan Brown]

Post by Paul

Post by Stewart
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are
2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program
Files; each of them has programs that I use.

On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case.

...

Post by Paul
You got two folders, because your OS is 64 bit.
Sure, there are a gazillion ways they *could* have implemented a
loader strategy. But they chose this way, for reasons that
aren't apparent.
It is actually possible, to tell apart "PE32" files from "PE32+"
files. So you can tell differences between 32 bit and 64 bit code.
Even the .NET executables have detectable differences. But it's
just cleaner to have two separate places to install to, so that
changes to one, don't affect the other.

I'm not blaming the messenger here, but that seems an eminently silly
design decision. As you say, Windows knows how to tell whether a
given program is 32- or 64-bit.

How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

Even if that justification did hold water, if that rare case even
exists it would make a lot more sense just to install the second
program version to a different folder. This is what happens now with
say Office 2003 and 2010.

As it is now, every time anyone in support tells someone about
something in program files, we have have to do it twice: "If you have
64-bit Windows, do this; but if you have 32-bit Windows, do that."

This same silliness carries over into the Registry, where you have
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\(proramname) for 64-bit programs and
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\SysWOW6432\(programname) for 32-bit
programs. In theory there's supposed to be some kind of mapping to
make that transparent to applications, but if that actually exists
then it doesn't work in REGEDIT.

[Dominique]

Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> �crivait news:***@news.individual.net:

<snip>

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation?

<snip>

One example would be music production software where 32 bits plugins (audio
effects or virtual instruments) would run better on a 32 bits host. Using
32 bits plugins on a 64 bits host requires one more software layer which
could cause higher latency (not good for virtual instruments) or other
problems, there might even be complete incompatibilities issues.

On the other hand if someone doesn't use 32 bits plugins in a project, he
might be better to use a 64 bits host for higher memory access which can be
useful in music production.

It's a per project context situation.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Dominique

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation?

One example would be music production software where 32 bits plugins (audio
effects or virtual instruments) would run better on a 32 bits host. Using
32 bits plugins on a 64 bits host requires one more software layer which
could cause higher latency (not good for virtual instruments) or other
problems, there might even be complete incompatibilities issues.

That's an example of why a program may need 32-bit and 64-bit
versions. I don't see how it's an example of needing both versions
within the same installation of Windows.

[Dominique]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Dominique

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation?

One example would be music production software where 32 bits plugins (audio
effects or virtual instruments) would run better on a 32 bits host. Using
32 bits plugins on a 64 bits host requires one more software layer which
could cause higher latency (not good for virtual instruments) or other
problems, there might even be complete incompatibilities issues.

That's an example of why a program may need 32-bit and 64-bit
versions. I don't see how it's an example of needing both versions
within the same installation of Windows.

OK, let's say I have a project that I absolutely want to use that 32 bits
virtual instrument that has problems in a 64 bits host (the program), I
will run the 32 bits host (program) so I can use my instrument.

Another day, I have another project, let's say RAP or Techno~Dance that
uses a lot of audio loops (those are usually used in RAM), I would want to
have access to as much RAM possible. In that case I would run the 64 bits
version of the program.

So I need both versions of the program (32 and 64 bits) to be installed at
the same time, sometimes I use the 32 bits and at other times I use the 64
bits.

I wouldn't create a dual-boot for that, I would simply install both 32 and
64 in the 64 bits version of Windows and I would use the one I need for my
actual project.

[Joe Morris]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Paul
On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case.
Sure, there are a gazillion ways they *could* have implemented a
loader strategy. But they chose this way, for reasons that
aren't apparent.

I'm not blaming the messenger here, but that seems an eminently silly
design decision. As you say, Windows knows how to tell whether a
given program is 32- or 64-bit.
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows?

A quick check of my production Win7 Enterprise 64-bit system shows 321
executables (*.exe) that are common to c:\windows\syswow64 and either
c:\windows (5) or c:\windows\system32 (316).

The dual-mode components would be required if they can be invoked from
either a 32-bit or 64-bit application and run in the application's address
space.

And there's at least one system-level interface where for whatever reason
(which may be legitimate) the system doesn't check the bitness of an
executable: screen savers. Last year I needed to write a screensaver to
replace the antique "winexit.scr" (how old is winexit? It uses the
"win.ini" interface for its configuration data, even though that's shimmed
into the Registry). I wrote it as a 32-bit application but out of habit put
it into C:\Windows\System32 - and it blew up. Moving the .scr file to
syswow64 fixed the problem. (Interestingly, all of the screen savers
packaged with Win7 are present in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.)

[remapping 32-bit Registry nodes]

Post by Stan Brown
This same silliness carries over into the Registry, where you have
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\(proramname) for 64-bit programs and
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\SysWOW6432\(programname) for 32-bit
programs. In theory there's supposed to be some kind of mapping to
make that transparent to applications, but if that actually exists
then it doesn't work in REGEDIT.

But REGEDIT doesn't *use* the Registry (OK; it does but not much) - its
function is to edit the Registry, and for good reason needs to display it as
it really is, and not cross-map the nodes. Incidentally, REG.EXE in XP and
Vista apparently does the cross-mapping if you use the 32-bit version (see
KB948698) but I've never had a need to use a 32-bit version of REG with a
64-bit system so I don't know how the Win7 version behaves.

Joe

[Good Guy]

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

You are missing the point here. The second folder (x86) is to install
32 bit version; while the main 64 bit folder is program files. There
are some people, me included, who are still running some 32 bit
applications and so there are installed in its correct location (x86
folder).

Adobe Photoshop comes in both versions and so both versions are
installed and so you are likely to find it in two locations.

The reason for having two folders to keep things separate so that they
don't get corrupted, presumably they share the same file names.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about this until 64 bit
becomes the 'de-facto' standard and all applications become 64 bit. In
the meantime we need to have two different folders and bigger hard disks
to store both versions.

[Joe Morris]

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

You are missing the point here. The second folder (x86) is to install 32
bit version; while the main 64 bit folder is program files. There are
some people, me included, who are still running some 32 bit applications
and so there are installed in its correct location (x86 folder).

Although I disagree with Stan's opinion on having both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application on the system, his question wasn't why there are
two Program Files folders (that was the question the OP asked); Stan was
asking why a user would ever need to install both.

The OP wisely took the advice in our responses and now understands that
combining the two Program Files folders would be a Very Bad Idea, but the
discussion of why a user might need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application continues.

Joe

[Good Guy]

Post by Joe Morris
The OP wisely took the advice in our responses and now understands that
combining the two Program Files folders would be a Very Bad Idea, but the
discussion of why a user might need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application continues.

One reason I can think of is the file compatibility. For example, when
I create a file in Photoshop 64 bit version, I can't e-mail it to
somebody who is still running 32 bit version of Photoshop. This creates
lots of problems when you want somebody to help you with the editing of
the file unless, of course, both parties are on the same platform and
using the same versions.

[Char Jackson]

Post by Good Guy

Post by Joe Morris
The OP wisely took the advice in our responses and now understands that
combining the two Program Files folders would be a Very Bad Idea, but the
discussion of why a user might need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application continues.

One reason I can think of is the file compatibility. For example, when
I create a file in Photoshop 64 bit version, I can't e-mail it to
somebody who is still running 32 bit version of Photoshop. This creates
lots of problems when you want somebody to help you with the editing of
the file unless, of course, both parties are on the same platform and
using the same versions.

Thanks for the heads up. My spouse uses 64bit PS at home and 32bit PS
at work, and brings her work projects home most evenings to work on
them here. After about a year, no compatibility problems so far, so I
have to ask: What specific file format are you referring to, and
what's in the file that indicates compatibility with only 32bit or
64bit systems?

[Stewart]

Joe, thank you for the explanation; I can now see where I went wrong. I
have all my program folders from my previous computer (Windows 7 - 32 bit)
on an external hard drive so thought it would be simple just to move them
into the new computer.
I first did that with Pinnacle Studio and of course put it into the program
folder, not into the x86 folder. The program ran but I was getting 2
faults. I reinstalled it from the original disc; this time the computer
(64 bit) put it into the x68 program folder and it appears to be running but
still a wee conflict so I think I shall have to uninstall the original.

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

You are missing the point here. The second folder (x86) is to install 32
bit version; while the main 64 bit folder is program files. There are
some people, me included, who are still running some 32 bit applications
and so there are installed in its correct location (x86 folder).

Although I disagree with Stan's opinion on having both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application on the system, his question wasn't why there are
two Program Files folders (that was the question the OP asked); Stan was
asking why a user would ever need to install both.

The OP wisely took the advice in our responses and now understands that
combining the two Program Files folders would be a Very Bad Idea, but the
discussion of why a user might need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit
flavors of an application continues.

Joe

[Joe Morris]

Post by Stewart
Joe, thank you for the explanation; I can now see where I went wrong. I
have all my program folders from my previous computer (Windows 7 - 32 bit)
on an external hard drive so thought it would be simple just to move them
into the new computer.
I first did that with Pinnacle Studio and of course put it into the
program folder, not into the x86 folder. The program ran but I was
getting 2 faults. I reinstalled it from the original disc; this time the
computer (64 bit) put it into the x68 program folder and it appears to be
running but still a wee conflict so I think I shall have to uninstall the
original.

It *is* a bit confusing, no? Not least because in a 64-bit system the
folder for 32-bit system components is "SYSWOW64" where the name suggests
that it's the home of the 64-bit files, but which could be more accurately
parsed as "*W*indows [32-bit programs] running *O*n *W*indows *64*-bit,"
thus "WOW64".

Wow. Plus a few other sarcastic comments.

There are a few files laid down by the Windows installation process that can
be moved around but whether or not you agree with Microsoft's somewhat weird
design of the file structure it's generally not worth the risk to try to
"clean it up", not least because the System File Checker (SFC) knows where
files should be and could cause problems if you ever need to run it.

Incidentally, many 32-bit applications will run quite happily from
C:\Program Files in a 64-bit system; I think you'll find that if nothing the
application does needs to choose a file that is bitness-sensitive then you
win. I've written several tools that support the Windows 7 installation
procedure at my POE, including two that front-end SLMGR and OSPP; some are
32-bit apps, some are 64-bit apps, and all of them go into a folder under
C:\Program Files. As I mentioned upthread, however, the screen saver I
wrote to replace winexit.scr *MUST* go into the appropriate system folder
(C:\Windows\System32 or C:\Windows\SYSWOW64) based in its bitness.

Joe

[Gene E. Bloch]

Post by Stan Brown
How often are people going to install a 32-bit and a 64-bit version
of the same program within the same installation of Windows? What
would be the motivation? (And BTW, Microsoft itself won't let you
have 32-bit and 64-bit Office on the same computer, which kind of
demolishes the "what if there are both versions?" justification.)

I don't know about the motivation, but I do know that, by default,
Microsoft arranges to install both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of
Internet Explorer in a 64-bit Windows.

[Wolf K]

Post by Paul

Post by Stewart
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there
are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and
C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?

On a 64 bit OS install, you can run a 32 bit version of a program
or a 64 bit version. They're kept in two separate folders, so
the installer knows how to handle each case.
On a 32 bit OS install, only one of those folders exists. That's
because you can only run 32 bit code in a 32 bit OS.
You got two folders, because your OS is 64 bit.[...]

Don't even try to change it.

[...winston]

"Stewart" wrote in message news:k3mdj0$4i1$***@speranza.aioe.org...
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that there are 2
folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86) and C:\Program Files;
each of them has programs that I use.
I think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and am
wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files (programs) in
the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program Files folder.
Does anyone know if this is OK?
To briefly supplement Paul's response (and answer your question)
- No
- it is ***not*** OK to incorporate the system required 32-bit C:\Program Files (x86) files (programs) into the 64-bit system
required C:\Program Files folder

[mechanic]

Post by Stewart
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that
there are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86)
and C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use. I
think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and
am wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program
Files folder. Does anyone know if this is OK?

If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

[Stewart]

Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.

Post by Stewart
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that
there are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86)
and C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use. I
think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and
am wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program
Files folder. Does anyone know if this is OK?

If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

[Alias]

Post by Stewart
Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but
now I shall just leave things as they are.

If ain't broken, don't try to fix it.

[Gene E. Bloch]

Post by Alias

Post by Stewart
Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but
now I shall just leave things as they are.

If ain't broken, don't try to fix it.

You are directly contradicting the advice of one of my favorite bumper
stickers:

"If it ain't broke, break it"

Not sure why I find it so compelling. Maybe it fits the history of my
attempts at fixing things.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Stewart
Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.
If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.

The problem is that Windows Live Mail 2011 (version 15) and also
version 16 have a quoting style that is completely broken.
Unfortunately that poses a painful choice to you: either fix every
quote manually, or get a real newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews,
and Forte Agent (to mention some that come to mind at the moment).
OR, if you really want WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve; see "SC
Tom" below.

update 2011-04-02: I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you
can un-break WLM 15 by installing and using an Autohotkey script:
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/

Thanks for your consideration!

Post by Stewart
Along with what the others have suggested, you can uninstall
WLM 2011 and install WLM 2009 instead, which handles quoting
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?
FamilyID=56883de5-2024-4631-806e-757693072a1c

[or use http://tinyurl.com/25zfouw which redirects to the above]

[Timothy Daniels]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Stewart
Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.
If it works ok why bother? The Windows designers know what they're
doing.

You might not be aware of a big problem with your quoting style.
The way your newsreader is doing it, when someone else follows
up, it looks like you *said* what you actually only quoted.
The problem is that Windows Live Mail 2011 (version 15) and also
version 16 have a quoting style that is completely broken.
Unfortunately that poses a painful choice to you: either fix every
quote manually, or get a real newsreader such as Gravity, Xananews,
and Forte Agent (to mention some that come to mind at the moment).
OR, if you really want WLM, some say that WLM 14 will serve; see "SC
Tom" below.
update 2011-04-02: I've seen a newsgroup posting claiming you
http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
Thanks for your consideration!

Post by Stewart
Along with what the others have suggested, you can uninstall
WLM 2011 and install WLM 2009 instead, which handles quoting
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?
FamilyID=56883de5-2024-4631-806e-757693072a1c

[or use http://tinyurl.com/25zfouw which redirects to the above]
--
Stan Brown

Those links are stale. Try this one to download v. 2009 of
Windows Live Mail:
http://windows-live-mail.brothersoft.com/windows-live-mail2009

*TimDaniels*

[...winston]

Post by Timothy Daniels
Those links are stale. Try this one to download v. 2009 of
http://windows-live-mail.brothersoft.com/windows-live-mail2009

All versions of WLM (09, 11, 12) are available directly from MSFT servers (no third party hosting sites)

cf.. My blog
http://liveunplugged.wordpress.com/category/windows-live-downloads/

<qp>
Direct download to Microsoft server for the installer executable file

Full version 2012 installer
http://g.live.com/1rewlive5-all/en/wlsetup-all.exe

Web Version 2012 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive5-web/en/wlsetup-web.exe

Full Version 2011 Installer – English Language version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive4-all/en/wlsetup-all.exe

Web Version 2011 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive4-web/en/wlsetup-web.exe


Full Version 2009 Installer - English Language version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive3/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2009 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive3/en/wlsetup-web.exe

Note: Direct download links above are for the English language installer. For a different country replace the ‘en’ with the local
language code.
http://liveunplugged.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/language-codes-for-windows-live-essentials-downloads.pdf

[Timothy Daniels]

Post by ...winston

Post by Timothy Daniels
Those links are stale. Try this one to download v. 2009 of
http://windows-live-mail.brothersoft.com/windows-live-mail2009

All versions of WLM (09, 11, 12) are available directly from MSFT servers (no third party hosting
sites)
cf.. My blog
http://liveunplugged.wordpress.com/category/windows-live-downloads/
<qp>
Direct download to Microsoft server for the installer executable file
Full version 2012 installer
http://g.live.com/1rewlive5-all/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2012 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive5-web/en/wlsetup-web.exe
Full Version 2011 Installer – English Language version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive4-all/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2011 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive4-web/en/wlsetup-web.exe
Full Version 2009 Installer - English Language version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive3/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2009 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive3/en/wlsetup-web.exe
Note: Direct download links above are for the English language installer. For a different country
replace the ‘en’ with the local language code.
http://liveunplugged.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/language-codes-for-windows-live-essentials-downloads.pdf
--
...winston
msft mvp mail

Hmmmm..... Never heard of g.live.com. Hmmmm......
Click. "It is not known whether this file is safe. Are you sure you want to download it?"

Uh.... thanks..... I think. :-)

*TimDaniels*

[...winston]

It's perfectly safe...and easily verified
Go here
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-live/download-windows-essentials
Place your cursor on any file and look at the link to the file on **Microsoft's** server
- you'll see the g.live.com on the status bar (or available by rt clicking the link and viewing its properties)

The only difference for all three versions 2009, 2011, 2012 provided in the previous post is the location (folder name) on the
server. The domain (g.live.com) and the filename are the same for all of them.
--
...winston
msft mvp mail

Post by ...winston

Post by Timothy Daniels
Those links are stale. Try this one to download v. 2009 of
http://windows-live-mail.brothersoft.com/windows-live-mail2009

All versions of WLM (09, 11, 12) are available directly from MSFT servers (no third party hosting sites)
cf.. My blog
http://liveunplugged.wordpress.com/category/windows-live-downloads/
<qp>
Direct download to Microsoft server for the installer executable file
Full version 2012 installer
http://g.live.com/1rewlive5-all/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2012 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive5-web/en/wlsetup-web.exe
Full Version 2011 Installer – English Language version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive4-all/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2011 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive4-web/en/wlsetup-web.exe
Full Version 2009 Installer - English Language version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive3/en/wlsetup-all.exe
Web Version 2009 Installer – English Language Version
http://g.live.com/1rewlive3/en/wlsetup-web.exe
Note: Direct download links above are for the English language installer. For a different country replace the ‘en’ with the local
language code.
http://liveunplugged.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/language-codes-for-windows-live-essentials-downloads.pdf
--
...winston
msft mvp mail

Hmmmm..... Never heard of g.live.com. Hmmmm......
Click. "It is not known whether this file is safe. Are you sure you want to download it?"

Uh.... thanks..... I think. :-)

*TimDaniels*

[Timothy Daniels]

Thanks for your persistence in pointing that out, Winston. I appreciate
your continued attention in this thread. It makes the replies worth archiving.

*TimDaniels*

[Ken Blake]

Post by Stewart
Thanks all, I had thought it would tidy the program folder up a bit! but now
I shall just leave things as they are.

One of the main reasons for leaving things as they are is that it lets
you have two versions (one 32-bit and one 64-bit) of the same program,
both with the same name.

You probably don't have a lot of such duplicates, but one that you do
have is Internet Explorer.

[John Williamson]

Post by mechanic

Post by Stewart
I have a new computer running windows 7 (64 bit) and find that
there are 2 folders in the C drive called C:\Program Files (x86)
and C:\Program Files; each of them has programs that I use. I
think it would simplify things if there was only one folder and
am wondering if it would be sensible to incorporate all the files
(programs) in the C:\Program Files (x86) into the C:\Program
Files folder. Does anyone know if this is OK?

If it works ok why bother?

Agreed.

The Windows designers know what they're

Post by mechanic
doing.

Doubtful, given they're currently on the bad part of the release cycle
with Windows 8. I'm hoping I can eke out this XP installation until
Windows 9 is released.