FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Windows 7 Program Files





Tony The Tiger
This week I got a new Windows 7 Hewlett Packard Pavilion DV7 laptop. I have been installing programs and I notice that I now have two Program files folders on the C: Drive. One is Program_Files. The other is Program_Files_(x86). It seems all the preinstalled software is in the former and all the manually installed software is in the latter. What is going on?
Diablosblizz
Does your laptop have 4GB+ of RAM? Or, is the operating system 64bit? The way I THINK x64 systems work is that all programs that can't be installed in x64 will be installed in the Program Files (x86) folder due to permission errors.

There is nothing wrong, all x64 based systems have these folders.
AftershockVibe
You have a 64-bit version of Windows. The standard "program files" folder is where 64bit applications are installed whereas the "program files (x86)" is where 32bit programs are installed.

For the OS this is important, for you... not really. 32bit applications will run under Windows 64, the same is not true the other way around.

In short: Nothing is wrong. Everything is how it should be Smile
Tony The Tiger
AftershockVibe wrote:
You have a 64-bit version of Windows.


What is the difference between a 32- and 64-bit version?

AftershockVibe wrote:
In short: Nothing is wrong. Everything is how it should be Smile


Thanks
rayxzero
Tony The Tiger wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
You have a 64-bit version of Windows.


What is the difference between a 32- and 64-bit version?

AftershockVibe wrote:
In short: Nothing is wrong. Everything is how it should be Smile


Thanks


I think it has something to do with memory handling. 64-bit can handle large amount of ram than 32-bit. For example if you have 4GB Ram installed and you are using 32-bit version the maximum it can only use are 3GB RAM.
Tony The Tiger
rayxzero wrote:
Tony The Tiger wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
You have a 64-bit version of Windows.


What is the difference between a 32- and 64-bit version?

AftershockVibe wrote:
In short: Nothing is wrong. Everything is how it should be Smile


Thanks


I think it has something to do with memory handling. 64-bit can handle large amount of ram than 32-bit. For example if you have 4GB Ram installed and you are using 32-bit version the maximum it can only use are 3GB RAM.


Thanks. I will do further research on the issue.
harismushtaq
For those reading this topic and are interested in some technical detail.

In 32 bit operating system, every memory unit (usually a byte) is addressed by a number from 0 to 4294967296. In binary number system, this can be accumulated in 32 binary digits. Thus a 32-bit operating system can use a maximum of this much addressable memory which is actually 4GB. It needs research why windows actually can only use 3GB in 32-bit mode.

With 64-bit operating system, the amount of memory that can be addressed is enormous. Something that a single computer may not be capable of getting installed for a long long time if ever. So virtually no limits to physical RAM.

Programs compiled in 32-bit do not run natively on 64-bit OS right away and need some 32-bit to 64-bit virtualization. MS has the required tools in windows so when you install a program compiled in 32-bit mode, windows does install it but in a special program folder. Many vendors bow provide 64-versions of their software so if you know the programs that you installed have 64-bit version, do get them and they will be installed in normal program folder.
guissmo
I had some ancient games that wont work since it's 32-bit and I'm running 64-bit. Even when I edit the compatibility settings, it just wont run. I'm guessing it's the program that detects what it's on, doesn't it?
Tony The Tiger
harismushtaq wrote:
For those reading this topic and are interested in some technical detail.

In 32 bit operating system, every memory unit (usually a byte) is addressed by a number from 0 to 4294967296. In binary number system, this can be accumulated in 32 binary digits. Thus a 32-bit operating system can use a maximum of this much addressable memory which is actually 4GB. It needs research why windows actually can only use 3GB in 32-bit mode.

With 64-bit operating system, the amount of memory that can be addressed is enormous. Something that a single computer may not be capable of getting installed for a long long time if ever. So virtually no limits to physical RAM.

Programs compiled in 32-bit do not run natively on 64-bit OS right away and need some 32-bit to 64-bit virtualization. MS has the required tools in windows so when you install a program compiled in 32-bit mode, windows does install it but in a special program folder. Many vendors bow provide 64-versions of their software so if you know the programs that you installed have 64-bit version, do get them and they will be installed in normal program folder.


Is 4294967296 equal to 2^32nd power? would 64 bit then be 2^64th power (which is 2^32nd power squared)? If so, we are probably generations of technology away from approaching computing limitations of 64 bit systems in terms of physical RAM. I don't understand why a 32 bit compilation would need to be handled specially. It would seem to just run with all the extra capabilities with the computers, but 64 bit compilations would logically be inoperable on 32 bit systems.
silverdown
I got windows 7 on a compaq persario 64 bit ( dont know the model off hand) and I really like it better then my XP system i had for a long long time.
Tony The Tiger
silverdown wrote:
I got windows 7 on a compaq persario 64 bit ( dont know the model off hand) and I really like it better then my XP system i had for a long long time.


I am on Windows 7 with my 64 bit and was on Windows Vista with my 32 bit system. 7 is miles better than Vista and XP, which is on my backup laptop, but I am not sure what the 64 bit has to do with it.
loyal
Tony The Tiger wrote:
silverdown wrote:
I got windows 7 on a compaq persario 64 bit ( dont know the model off hand) and I really like it better then my XP system i had for a long long time.


I am on Windows 7 with my 64 bit and was on Windows Vista with my 32 bit system. 7 is miles better than Vista and XP, which is on my backup laptop, but I am not sure what the 64 bit has to do with it.


The 64 bit is supposed to allow developers to write programs that run on 64 bit hardware, so the programs would be faster. But there still aren't that many programs written for it. So I'm not sure what the point of 128 bit is (if the rumours about windows 8 are true).

Peace.
metalfreek
I have heard that most software doesn't work in 64 bit OS as most of them are developed for 32 bit OS. Is it true or just a rumor.
loyal
metalfreek wrote:
I have heard that most software doesn't work in 64 bit OS as most of them are developed for 32 bit OS. Is it true or just a rumor.


See harismushtaq's post:

Quote:

See Programs compiled in 32-bit do not run natively on 64-bit OS right away and need some 32-bit to 64-bit virtualization.


As far as I've seen, 32 bit programs work straight away. Maybe I don't see the virtualisation take place.

Peace.
Tony The Tiger
loyal wrote:
Tony The Tiger wrote:
silverdown wrote:
I got windows 7 on a compaq persario 64 bit ( dont know the model off hand) and I really like it better then my XP system i had for a long long time.


I am on Windows 7 with my 64 bit and was on Windows Vista with my 32 bit system. 7 is miles better than Vista and XP, which is on my backup laptop, but I am not sure what the 64 bit has to do with it.


The 64 bit is supposed to allow developers to write programs that run on 64 bit hardware, so the programs would be faster. But there still aren't that many programs written for it. So I'm not sure what the point of 128 bit is (if the rumours about windows 8 are true).

Peace.


If nothing can use all the capabilities of 64 bit processors why in the name of the lord would anyone be moving up to 128 bit systems? Am I misunderstanding the use of 64 bit in which nothing written is really using all that it has to offer because nothing uses that much capacity?
Tony The Tiger
metalfreek wrote:
I have heard that most software doesn't work in 64 bit OS as most of them are developed for 32 bit OS. Is it true or just a rumor.


I have had to purchase some software mainly because when you upgrade to a new operating system software is not always compatible. However, most of my software works. It seems that I always have to buy new Norton software when I upgrade my operating system. Norton Save & Restore 2.0 does not work in Windows 7 so I had to buy the latest version of Ghost and when I upgraded to Vista 3 years ago, I bought Norton Save & Restore 2.0 because Vista did not run the old version of Ghost.
loyal
Tony The Tiger wrote:

If nothing can use all the capabilities of 64 bit processors why in the name of the lord would anyone be moving up to 128 bit systems?


It's just that people tend to write programs for 32 bit because 32 bit is standard, although windows is now starting to phase that out. People can write programs for 64 bit.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars

Peace.
Tony The Tiger
loyal wrote:
Tony The Tiger wrote:

If nothing can use all the capabilities of 64 bit processors why in the name of the lord would anyone be moving up to 128 bit systems?


It's just that people tend to write programs for 32 bit because 32 bit is standard, although windows is now starting to phase that out. People can write programs for 64 bit.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars

Peace.


That still does not answer the question that I posed above.
AftershockVibe
Tony The Tiger wrote:
loyal wrote:
Tony The Tiger wrote:

If nothing can use all the capabilities of 64 bit processors why in the name of the lord would anyone be moving up to 128 bit systems?


It's just that people tend to write programs for 32 bit because 32 bit is standard, although windows is now starting to phase that out. People can write programs for 64 bit.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars

Peace.


That still does not answer the question that I posed above.



32-bit programs do use the capabitilies of 64-bit systems, they just don't realise it (and therefore don't do it very well). If you have a 64-bit OS then there are 2^64 memory addresses available. The operating system can use all of these, but a 32-bit program running on that OS can only use 2^32.

On most modern systems this isn't a large problem because the OS hides real memory address from the program using something called "virtual memory". This hides the rest of memory from the program that is running and has been used for decades to prevent programs from doing stupid/bad things like overwriting the OS or other programs! So most 32-bit programs run OK and are quite happy with their 32-bit restriction (since they know nothing else).

Since there are usually many programs running on a system, all the memory can still be used. Similarly, a 128-bit OS on a 128-bit system would allow for similarly large leaps in memory use. The main target for such an OS would be the server market where large amounts of data are used. Any database developer would also have a 128-bit version of course to take advantage of this.

There are of course other advantages to increasing the number of bits your computer can handle at once. Faster crunching of large numbers for one. This isn't just useful in science; I'd be very surprised if we didn't start seeing 64-bit versions of game engines soon to exploit this.
achowles
Yes, it's the 64bit version. Generally, 64 bit Windows is more capable than the 32 bit version. For instance, the most memory the 32 bit version can handle is 3.25GB. 64 bit Windows can handle an astronomically large amount of RAM.
Tony The Tiger
achowles wrote:
Yes, it's the 64bit version. Generally, 64 bit Windows is more capable than the 32 bit version. For instance, the most memory the 32 bit version can handle is 3.25GB. 64 bit Windows can handle an astronomically large amount of RAM.


I believe 32 bit handles 2^32 and 64 bit handles 2^64=(2^32)*(2^32). I assume 128 bit would handle 2^128=(2^32)*(2^32)*(2^32)*(2^32). However, handling more memory is the only improvement 64 bit is way beyond any possible demands. Why is 128 necessary?
Tony The Tiger
AftershockVibe wrote:
32-bit programs do use the capabitilies of 64-bit systems, they just don't realise it (and therefore don't do it very well). If you have a 64-bit OS then there are 2^64 memory addresses available. The operating system can use all of these, but a 32-bit program running on that OS can only use 2^32.

On most modern systems this isn't a large problem because the OS hides real memory address from the program using something called "virtual memory". This hides the rest of memory from the program that is running and has been used for decades to prevent programs from doing stupid/bad things like overwriting the OS or other programs! So most 32-bit programs run OK and are quite happy with their 32-bit restriction (since they know nothing else).

Since there are usually many programs running on a system, all the memory can still be used. Similarly, a 128-bit OS on a 128-bit system would allow for similarly large leaps in memory use. The main target for such an OS would be the server market where large amounts of data are used. Any database developer would also have a 128-bit version of course to take advantage of this.

There are of course other advantages to increasing the number of bits your computer can handle at once. Faster crunching of large numbers for one. This isn't just useful in science; I'd be very surprised if we didn't start seeing 64-bit versions of game engines soon to exploit this.


On the one hand, you are saying that the higher bits are most likely to be a benefit to server systems. On the other hand, you are saying that they should be exploited by gamers on personal computing systems. It seems to me that with virtual memory and 64-bit there is not really much improvement left for personal computing systems' operating system capability in terms of bits once you get out to a number like 2^64. I think you said above that nothing but a server system could really leverage the capabilities. Are you saying that future game developments may be able to harness the greater powers of 128 bit systems? Or do you feel current games could really take advantage of the processing capabilities of the more extensive operating system?
datarecovery
I think it is due to your operating system. Check it whether it is 64bit or 34bit.
Regards
Data recovery
http://www.datadoctor.biz
achowles
Tony The Tiger wrote:
Why is 128 necessary?


Are there even 128bit OS? By the time we've reached the need for that kind of memory I'd hope that by then the whole way computers are built is completely different. Hell we'd most likely have quantum computing by then. Whatever the case I doubt we'll be jamming silicon boards into plastic slots and calling it the height of technological progress.
Tony The Tiger
achowles wrote:
Tony The Tiger wrote:
Why is 128 necessary?


Are there even 128bit OS? By the time we've reached the need for that kind of memory I'd hope that by then the whole way computers are built is completely different. Hell we'd most likely have quantum computing by then. Whatever the case I doubt we'll be jamming silicon boards into plastic slots and calling it the height of technological progress.


I am not the expert on this issue, but I do not think 128bit Operating Systems exist. However, it must not be far from becoming reality because there are 128 bit central processing units out there AFAIK. Wikipedia mentions them in their 128-bit article that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit
samuelk
i hate 64bit computers,dunno y
Tony The Tiger
samuelk wrote:
i hate 64bit computers,dunno y


It would seem to me that 64 bit computers are more powerful and more technically advanced. I am just not sure about the technical issues on how software is run and written on these machines in terms of labelling folders and such. I am not going to cast general aspersion on the whole technology.
ankur209
Dear...You must be having windows 7 (64 Bit) Operating System preinstalled...!!

So all the softwares you installed in your laptop will be either 32-bit or 64-bit compatible one...!!

so those which are 64-bit Compatible get installed in "Program Files" and the 32-bit gets into "Program Files (X86) ...

So u must not worry on that part...Its the deafult setting..!!
Tony The Tiger
ankur209 wrote:
Dear...You must be having windows 7 (64 Bit) Operating System preinstalled...!!

So all the softwares you installed in your laptop will be either 32-bit or 64-bit compatible one...!!

so those which are 64-bit Compatible get installed in "Program Files" and the 32-bit gets into "Program Files (X86) ...


I have figured this much out based on responses above.
Related topics
Problem accessing "Program Files"
Windows 7 Official Thread
Windows 7 64 Bit issues
Free Windows 7 Upgrades
Windows 7 & Vista File Sharing …. Ease It Up
Windows 7 RC1 on a HP tx2000 tablet
How to install Windows 7 [BASIC].
Windows 7 FaydalarI
Windows 7 nin iηinde Windows Xp Modu
windows 7 installation via USB
Which is better: windows 7 or ubuntu9.10 ?
Make a program launch in windows 7 when Ipod is attached
Windows 7 Pic files show Icons not Pic any more
For those looking for a bit more speed from Windows 7
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Software

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.