Solved Why is Windows 7 64-bit not 64-bit?

[Howdr]

I installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit and I still get that "Program Files (x86)" folder besides the "Program Files" folder. I do not and I do not want to use any 32-bit crap. How can I legally get rid of the 32-bit crap?

I have no idea how to answer this......... FireFox is 32 bit, some games are 32 bit, many programs like VLC are 32 bit............... If you want to use the widest range of programs you need 32 bit compatibility and being 32 bit does not make it inferior, in fact some 32 bit programs are quite awesome

 

[Howdr]

"No dont try to delete the folder its part of Microsoft's operating system and is essential."

Why is a 32-bit program folder "essential" for a 64-bit operating system?

Because the OS references it, without it, it will Crash, if you love BSOD happening then try it after you have backed it up. I bet it will happen if not right away in time:huh:

 

[Spock3]

DeaconFrost, no ranting. But why is Windows 7 64-bit not 64-bit?

 

[DeaconFrost]

I have no idea how to answer this

There isn't a way to answer it...and you'll only give yourself a migraine trying to. Some of those apps you've mentioned do have 64 bit equivalents, but for what purpose? You can run Firefox x64, but why? Web-browsing won't be any better or different, yet many add-ons and plug-ins don't work with it. Flash sucks as it is, but even more so with an x64 browser. No reason at all to run one. The OP just needs to do a little reading on the subject to understand that the desktop computing world isn't ready to be exclusively 64-bit to understand why the rant is unfounded and unneccesary. Hell, there are people still trying to run 16 bit programs!

 

[Spock3]

Howdr, why does a (so-called) 64-bit operating system reference to a 32-bit folder? All I am saying is that Microsoft is fooling consumers (on purpose).

 

[Nigsy]

Here you go:

Return Infinity - BareMetal OS

Remove W7 completley - Install baremetal OS and compile your own 64bit from source code.

Problem solved. No need to worry about us still hanging on to our archaic 32bit architecture - Hell 128bit computing is just around the corner!!

 

[Spock3]

Dear DeaconFrost, I mentioned before that I don't have an Internet connection with this computer! I also mentioned that I don't use any 32-bit applications. I only question the term 64-bit operating system, which isn't the truth. They should call it 'Hybrid OS' or something.

 

[Spock3]

Nigsy, okay, I'll do that.

 

[DeaconFrost]

DeaconFrost, no ranting. But why is Windows 7 64-bit not 64-bit?

It is. You aren't understanding, and rather than taking it as a chance to learn your being combatitive about it. It is 64 bit, because it can handle 64 bit executables. However, for usability sake, it must maintain the ability to run 32 bit apps. Very very few games are x64 exclusively, as an example. No version of Windows has ever been one and only one level.

Were you ranting about how XP and Vista (x86) had the nerve to still run 16 bit applications? What about Windows 7 x86? That still runs 16 bit applications.

Howdr, why does a (so-called) 64-bit operating system reference to a 32-bit folder? All I am saying is that Microsoft is fooling consumers (on purpose).

That's hysterical! That aren't fooling anyone. It's a 64 bit OS because it has the capability of running 64 bit applications. Your lack of understanding doesn't mean Microsoft is trying to full anyone. ALL OSes act like this.

 

[FuturDreamz]

DeaconFrost, no ranting. But why is Windows 7 64-bit not 64-bit?

Technically it is, but it's not necessary to has ALL code converted to 64-bit.
I imaging that there are still several important Windows components that have not been converted simply because it's not necessary. Like VitalOd says there isn't any difference, because Windows handles 32-bit and 64-bit code seamlessly together

In fact, I believe there is not one valid reason to fully remove 32-bit code, except maybe reducing the Windows footprint slightly.

I'm under no illusions that if you try hard enough you can delete Program Files (x86), but I believe the system will no longer properly function on a daily basis.

 

[Nigsy]

Howdr, why does a (so-called) 64-bit operating system reference to a 32-bit folder? All I am saying is that Microsoft is fooling consumers (on purpose).

MS isn't fooling customers, LINUX, MacOS all have backwards compatibility and that's all it is.

If you want pure 64bit computing you will need to compile your own OS from source. There are limitations place on MS and other OS's by hardware that still need 32bit drivers etc.

32bit will die eventually as did 8 and 16, but not quite yet.

 

[indianacarnie]

Heres a good explanation if you haven't seen it : Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder? - How-To Geek

 

[DeaconFrost]

Here's an example I came across just now, installing a very popular program. It's the latest version of the software. Notice the path it chose by default.

The reason you are used to seeing only one Program Files directory, is because your previous versions were likely all 32 bit, and couldn't handle 64 bit applications...so there was never a need to separate out Program Files into two directories.

 

[Layback Bear]

Spock3 I guess the best way of finding your answer is just remove your 32 bit and see how it works. Recommend printing out this Tutorial before you do it.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1649-clean-install-windows-7-a.html
Have a nice day.

 

[edwar]

Please do not feed the trols.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I thought that, too, but I'm holding out hope that Spock3 would come back with some good ol' fashioned questions and turn this into a learning event.

 

[AddRAM]

It`s already there when you install windows. Has nothing to do with if you installed a 32 bit program or not.

Right click the folder to see what the size is.

 

[cytherian]

It supports 64 bit. But not all of it is. Some things don't need to be.

What is your underlying concern? Are you taking a perfectionist tact of wanting to keep your installation "pure" 64 bit? There's no such thing, and it's pointless to feel like it's "not quite right." What matters most is efficient and reliable program execution. And that's what you're actually getting. I would just accept it and move on. There's far more compelling things to nitpick on.

 

[Spock3]

cytherian, that is my "underlying" concern. Yes, I want it to be "perfect". Unfortunately Windows is far from being "perfect". Never mind "backwards compatibility". I do not intend to use any 32-bit programs. I also surely don't need 'Paint' or 'Wordpad', neither do I need 'Notepad' or MS 'Mail'. The least MS could do is give the consumer a choice to install what he wants. - I remember having had an Atari Falcon in 1993. The operating system (TOS 4) came on a 1.44 MB floppy, gave me multitasking, virtual memory management, 3d desktop, and the essential file operations. And then I could add whatever I wanted! Now I get more than a gigabyte of stuff and what I only want is a 64-bit operating system to run 64-bit applications, and only those!

 

[Spock3]

Layback Bear, I always make "clean" installations of Operating Systems! But the installation itself is "unclean", as it doesn't let me choose what I want to install.