|
Posted by John Pollard on April 20, 2007, 1:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options
R. C. White wrote:
> Hi again, John.
>
> As I said in my other Reply, some of my experiences with
> Vista have more to do with the fact that I'm running a
> 64-bit version of Vista. In many ways, the differences
> between 32-bit and 64-bit are more significant than those
> between WinXP and Vista. (To cut down on typing, I will
> often refer to the 64-bit versions of both WinXP and
> Vista as "Win64".)
> Now, about 64-bit. As you probably know, 64-bit hardware
> will run 32-bit Windows/Vista just fine; you probably
> won't even notice any difference. Also, 64-bit WinXP or
> Vista will run all 32-bit software - again, you're not
> likely to notice any difference. (But 16-bit software,
> like my beloved 20-year-old WordPerfect Office Calendar,
> won't run at all in 64-bit Windows. That old software
> will run in 32-bit Windows, thanks to some built-in
> translation, which someone else will have to explain. And, of
> course, 64-bit operating systems or software
> cannot be installed on 32-bit hardware.) So, if you are
> running only WinXP Pro or Vista x86, even on a 64-bit
> computer, none of this discussion applies to you. And if
> you started fresh with WinXP x64 or Vista x64 on a new
> 64-bit computer and accepted all the defaults when you
> installed Quicken and other software, then you should not
> even notice the following complications.
> But if you installed WinXP x64 or Vista x64 onto your
> 64-bit computer that had already been running 32-bit
> Windows, you probably carried over existing applications
> and data files from your 32-bit days. And if you chose
> (as many of us did) to add 64-bit Windows to dual-boot
> with your 32-bit OS, then you likely share my discoveries
> and frustrations.
> When I first installed WinXP Pro x64 a couple of years
> ago, I noticed that the "C:Program Files" folder was
> still here, as always, but there was also a new folder:
> "C:Program Files (x86)". Since that new folder, with
> "(x86)" appended to the name, never appeared in 32-bit
> Windows, I assumed that this was where 64-bit programs
> would be installed. After installing several
> applications in my new x64 Windows, I was confused
> because they kept going into PF86. (Let me refer to
> those two folders as PF and PF86.) Often, I wound up with
> programs such Office in BOTH PF and PF86. :>( Several
> months later in a Microsoft newsgroup, I learned that my
> assumption was wrong - by 180 degrees!
> When running 64-bit Windows - whether WinXP x64 or Vista
> x64 - all installations of 64-bit applications should go
> into Program Files. But 32-bit apps should go into the
> new Program Files (x86) folder! The term "x86" is meant
> to refer to the 80x86 family of Intel microprocessors,
> which means practically every PC we've used up until now.
> Since those PCs have all been 32-bit, the term "x86"
> translates to "32-bit". They could have used "x32", but
> they didn't. And "x64", naturally, means 64-bit
> operating systems and the apps written for 64-bits. So
> far, there are practically NO 64-bit apps, so the Program
> Files folder in Vista x64 should probably still be empty.
> ALL the software installed in Win64 so far should be in
> Program Files (x86).
> There is not yet a 64-bit version of Quicken. There may
> never be one. If you are running Vista x86, it expects
> to find qw.exe in C:Program FilesQuicken. But if you
> are running Win64 when you install Quicken, it will, by
> default, go into C:Program Files (x86)Quicken.
> All that's OK if you are running only one version of
> Vista. But if you are dual-booting both x86 and x64
> versions, and running Quicken from both of them, then you
> must either (a) install Quicken twice into two different
> locations and try to keep all your tweaks and data files
> synchronized between them, or (b) install Quicken twice
> into a single location. I've followed my
> already-establish practice of (b), installing Quicken
> into E:QuickenW, rather than into a subfolder in Program
> Files; I can access this single installation from either
> Vista x86 or Vista x64. (But I've not yet rationalized
> my several installations of MS Office 2007; its
> half-gigabyte of files are duplicated in several
> locations on my hard drives and I haven't come up with a
> good solution to sharing a single installation.)
> This new PF86 folder can also be a problem for users
> upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows. The operating
> system itself cannot be "upgraded". Hardware and drivers
> differences are so great that we can't install any 64-bit
> OS while booted into a 32-bit OS - and vice versa. So we
> can't just upgrade from WinXP Pro SP2 to WinXP x64 or to
> Vista x64; we must do a clean install. That takes care
> of the OS transition, but then all the apps must be
> installed again in Win64. If our old hard drive has
> survived the transition to Win64, then it will still hold
> the PF folder - with all those 32-bit programs that
> should now be migrated to PF86. They will still run as
> before from the PF folder. There will be no problem
> until Win64 needs to load special drivers to handle
> 32-bit programs but, because the files are not in the
> special PF86 folder, the special handlers won't be
> loaded. I've not encountered such a situation, so I
> don't know what problems might be lurking, but we must be
> aware of the potential for future conflicts.
> For myself, I have been using a "generic" folder
> (E:QuickenW) for Quicken for many years, since before
> the PF folder was introduced (in Win95?). For years,
> I've been dual-booting multiple versions of Windows. The
> 32-bit versions and 64-bit versions of Windows and Vista
> are happy to install Quicken (again!) into that same
> E:QuickenW folder. (Dozens of times, as I've updated
> Quicken most years, and as I've re-installed Q2005, 06
> and 07 several times during the Vista beta.) Now I can
> start Quicken, no matter which version of Windows or
> Vista I'm running and work on my single Quicken "file".
> But I don't use such top-level folders for most of my
> applications, such as Microsoft Office. I typically
> direct those to my Drive E:, but let them install into
> their default subfolders (E:Program FilesMicrosoft
> OfficeOffice12, for example). When I install them from
> Win86, they go into PF; when I install them again from
> Win64, they go into PF86. Of course, I can "guide" them
> into PF instead, where they will override the existing
> copies of the same files, thus saving a half-gigabyte or
> so of space and allowing me to "tweak" them to my
> preferences just once. But then Win64 thinks they are
> 64-bit applications. This has not created a problem yet
> - but I don't know what the future might bring.
> Most of these problems will occur only during a
> transition from Win86 to Win64. For computers that
> dual-boot both 32-bit and 64-bit systems, the problems
> will continue, at least for a while.
> Microsoft could have avoided much of this confusion by
> letting Win64 continue to use PF for 32-bit applications
> and create a new "Program Files (x64)" folder for 64-bit
> apps. But they went the other direction. The wrong way,
> in my opinion. Too bad they didn't ask me first. :>(
>
> Sorry for running on and on, John This is a 64-bit
> question, not a Vista question. Most Quicken and Vista
> users will never see any of these problems. ;<)
Let me echo Margaret's reply: thanks for all this. I too will
be salting it away.
I think it will be a while before I am actually using Vista, but
I do keep running into those who already are, and hopefully I
will now be a bit better able to communicate with Quicken users
on Vista.
--
John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap