Solved Program Files and Program Files (x86) - any way to merge these?

[ozzy441]

Hi, first off I know there has been discussion about this before - I'd like to ask something more specific.

I'm one of these people who just likes to keep applications on a separate partition (apart from those I consider as an integral part of the system, such as drivers etc...). Using this, I've found no problems installing applications such as Photoshop with x86 and x64 versions side-by-side to the same partition (Folder structure = P(rograms):\Adobe\Photoshop and P:\Adobe\Photoshop (64-Bit). By default, Photoshop would have installed x86 and x64 versions side-by-side in a similar structure in Program Files (x86) anyway.

What I'm saying is, I understand the idea in keeping x86 and x64 applications (and their resources) in separate directories for less confusion and cross-incompatibility issues, but do they have to be kept in entirely separate superdirectories? Wouldn't C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IE(x86) and C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IE(x64) work just as well for these dual versions as the standard layout?

I just like to be organised and keep things in one place.

On a side note, again I understand the needs to keep x86 and x64 separate, but seeing as I have a 64-bit machine, do I need x86 and x64 versions of apps like Sidebar and Defender? I know that IE x86 is there for compatibility with web standards (I'm looking at you, flash!) but it seems nonsense that I need two versions of, say, Windows Mail (just in case, you know, I happen to receive "32-bit E-Mail".

 

[bbearren]

For one thing, the x64 and x86 versions of iexplore.exe have the same name, as well as other files in the Internet Explorer folders.

 

[seavixen32]

Windows 7 uses separate directories for 32-bit and 64-bit applications to avoid conflicts with things like Active-X controls and personally, I wouldn't consider merging them.

You mention Internet Explorer in particular. As far as I'm aware, if you uninstall one version you do in fact lose both as both get uninstalled.

You also mention Flash. Adobe have released a 64-bit Flash version that also includes the 32-bit version when installed.

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-64-bit-operating.html

 

[ozzy441]

@bbearren - I know, but I'm not talking about both .exes in one directory, more like one IE directory under program files, with two subdirectories - one each for the files, .exe etc for each version

{Such as
C:\

Program Files\​

Internet Explorer\​

IE\​

IEx64 subdirs and files​

IE(x86)\​

IEx86 subdirs and files​

etc for other dual architecture programs
}

@seavixen32 - I understand avoiding conflicts, just seems odd that none of these conflicts arise when using other applications with two versions, each in a subdirectory of a main directory for the program, like I mentioned with photoshop's default install location, and flash isn't the only part of the web unreachable by 64-bit browsers.

Also, things like Sidebar (The system is 64-bit, the OS is 64-bit, the desktop environment is 64-bit, if I ever really had the urge to use sidebar, why on earth would I use a 32-bit version. Similarly, to what extent is the usefulness of 32 and 64-bit e-mail apps. Even photoshop, I only ever use 64-bit (in fact I sometime install only 64-bit, and leave 32-bit out) and have no compatibility issues, nor missing any features.

 

[seavixen32]

Not sure whether this is of use to you, but you might want to read through this article: Single Package Authoring

And this one too: http://www.samlogic.net/articles/32-64-bit-windows-folder-x86-syswow64.htm

Although no help to you now, with the proliferation of 64-bit computers there'll come a time when all software is written for 64-bit systems, so the problem won't arise then.

 

[ozzy441]

@seavixen32 Thanks, looks useful. Way to knackered to actually put it to good use at the moment though. Bookmarked.

On a side note, my installing of x86 and x64 applications (totally separate applications that don't share names) on a separate partition under a single directory, shouldn't cause any problems?

Another, even more of a side note - You're in P'boro - I'm from near there (well, near enough - St. Ives)

 

[whs]

The simple answer is: NO.

 

[seavixen32]

@seavixen32 Thanks, looks useful. Way to knackered to actually put it to good use at the moment though. Bookmarked.

On a side note, my installing of x86 and x64 applications (totally separate applications that don't share names) on a separate partition under a single directory, shouldn't cause any problems?

Another, even more of a side note - You're in P'boro - I'm from near there (well, near enough - St. Ives)

As whs points out, no.

I know St Ives well. We sometimes park up there and take the guided busway into Cambridge.

In fact, there's even talk of extending it through to Ramsey and Peterborough using the old railway trackbed.

 

[ozzy441]

As whs points out, no.

Good to know - I like to keep organised, thats my way of doing so

I know St Ives well. We sometimes park up there and take the guided busway into Cambridge.

In fact, there's even talk of extending it through to Ramsey and Peterborough using the old railway trackbed.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Seems like an okay idea, but I'm sure it will get mixed responses.

 

[kado897]

Some installers give you the option of where to put software and others do not. I personally keep things the way they were designed by Microsoft. It keeps things simpler and less liable to problems. If you really want to move software around there are a lot of portable apps out there which don't need installing and can reside anywhere.

 

[ozzy441]

Some installers give you the option of where to put software and others do not. I personally keep things the way they were designed by Microsoft. It keeps things simpler and less liable to problems. If you really want to move software around there are a lot of portable apps out there which don't need installing and can reside anywhere.

Its more to do with my SSD setup, not wanting to thrash it with loads of reads, only using it for apps i need to performance boost from. I have way more partitions than anyone needs, I know that (disk0-C: for system, disk-1 P: for programs, G: for games, U: for users, M: for media and V: for pagefile)

I just like to organise things. My real life is the same, sadly.

 

[kado897]

Ah yes I see. I've no experience with SSDs. I will ask if anyone can help.

 

[ozzy441]

So, I install things like drivers to the SSD, alongside the OS, as well as other apps I'd like to see a performance boost from. Everything else gets sent to P: on an HDD.

I suppose, I'd prefer A single program files directory with both x86 and x64 subdirectories (it makes more sense to me, than two directories of the same name) - but as far as the advice goes, I guess that's a no

 

[kado897]

I have posted a request for someone to respond if they know of any answers.

 

[whs]

I would not worry about the SSD. Just treat it like any other disk.

Moving the programs and the pagefile or any other system files off the SSD is a mistake. At best I would reduce the pagefile size to 2GB and only move very large programs (like some games) to the HDD. But that only for space considerations (because the SSD is usually small) not to save read/write operations.

My user data I always move to the HDD because I always use 60GB SSDs that really do not have enough space for the user data. On laptops I use a 32GB stick. Has the advantage that I can carry the data from system to system.

My oldest SSD is nearly 4 years old and still works perfectly.

 

[strollin]

I'm curious as to why you feel something like "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IE(x86)" and "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IE(x64)" is more organized than "C:\Program Files\IE and "C:\Program Files(x86)\IE"? It seems to me it ends up with the same amount of sub folders so what's the difference?

As far as your reasoning that it would cause less thrashing of your SSD, I doubt it would make any discernible difference.

 

[seavixen32]

Some installers give you the option of where to put software and others do not. I personally keep things the way they were designed by Microsoft. It keeps things simpler and less liable to problems. If you really want to move software around there are a lot of portable apps out there which don't need installing and can reside anywhere.

Its more to do with my SSD setup, not wanting to thrash it with loads of reads, only using it for apps i need to performance boost from. I have way more partitions than anyone needs, I know that (disk0-C: for system, disk-1 P: for programs, G: for games, U: for users, M: for media and V: for pagefile)

I just like to organise things. My real life is the same, sadly.

I feel your pain as I'm an organiser too.

However, so is Windows.

You may find this article useful for throwing light on the subject of 32-bit programs in a 64-bit environment.

How Windows 64-bit Supports 32-bit Applications

 

[bbearren]

My setup is sliced and diced as in Set 7 Free. I have 15 partitions on two 1TB drives in Windows, 19 partitions total. This is a system of organization that has developed over many years, and serves me quite well.
But as for combining the Program Files folders, it doesn't really save any room on a hard drive or have any noticable effect on HDD performance.

 

[ozzy441]

I understand there is no space saving benefits of combining those folders. There may be the same number of subdirs, but there are less dirs higher up the hierarchy, which seems more organised to me. As far as moving the pagefile off the SSD, that wasn't part of my 'lets not thrash this' plan, more habit, i like it on its own partition. same goes for programs etc.

User profiles stored on SSD, media and docs stored in separate partitions on HDD

I will check out Set 7 Free.

sorry, I know this reply is a bit all over the place (a bit ironic, really) but im at work and typing quick

 

[whs]

As far as moving the pagefile off the SSD, that wasn't part of my 'lets not
thrash this' plan, more habit, i like it on its own partition. same goes for
programs etc.

That is OK if you like that. But it is counterproductive and slows down your system - defeats the purpose of the SSD.