Sorry, but I don't feel confused. I asked how 32-bit and 64-bit routines can be distinguished.I think you are confused. The Windows Installer has nothing to do with it. YOU, the user must decide if you run 32-bit or 64-bit then YOU the user must download and install the correct version.
The program developer may bundle both versions in a single download, but then it is that program's installer that then check to see what version is needed.
Thank you very much. That is what interested me.Bsomers.
As you surmised, it is in the program (binary) string. in the program header..
The first value in the file header tells you the architecture:
0x14C for x86 or
0x8664 for x64.
Now, I'm confused. LOL What is the advantage of having both versions if the processor is a 64-bit processor?... the 32-bit version is installed in the "Program Files (x86)" folder, but the 64-bit version is also installed in the Programs Files folder.
The processor has next to nothing to do with because most processors and motherboards have supported 64-bit for many years.What is the advantage of having both versions if the processor is a 64-bit processor?
It would surprise me if the processor had so little 'to do with it`. The fundamental difference is certainly that the 64-bit processor provides new instructions and enhanced instructions for tranferring larger 'chunks of data'. And includes wider registers for data and addresses (themselves data, of course).The processor has next to nothing to do with because most processors and motherboards have supported 64-bit for many years.
I just took a look at the version of IE9 stored in \Windows\Program Files on my 64-bit system. I didn't find either 0x14C or 0x8664 . But I found the string IsWow64Process at an offset of 48 bytes from the beginning. It appears to be a 32-bit application, marked to be run in a 64-bit environment with the help of Wow64:The first value in the file header tells you the architecture: 0x14C for x86 or 0x8664 for x64.
Of course the CPU must support 64-bit. That was not the point. You took that one line out of context. I was responding to your comment about which version of IE is installed where.It would surprise me if the processor had so little 'to do with it`. The fundamental difference is certainly that the 64-bit processor provides new instructions and enhanced instructions for tranferring larger 'chunks of data'. And includes wider registers for data and addresses (themselves data, of course).
Ow, sorry then. I did misinterpret that. On the other hand, I hadn't spoken about IE. I avoid IE except for checking how a new or modified web page will go wrong with IE.Of course the CPU must support 64-bit. That was not the point. You took that one line out of context. I was responding to your comment about which version of IE is installed where.
No problem!Ow, sorry then. I did misinterpret that.
Ummm, sorry, but you did! In response to my comments (which you quoted) about where IE is installed, you said,On the other hand, I hadn't spoken about IE.
Certainly, it is your choice to avoid IE and I respect that. Just make sure you are avoiding it for a legitimate reason. Security is not one. Robustness is not one. Speed is not one. IE9 excels in all those - especially security! IE crashes are rare, but crash recovery works flawlessly. And IE9 is extremely quick.What is the advantage of having both versions if the processor is a 64-bit processor?
I do see that now. I wasn't thinking of IE, but of programs in general, that appear in both folders. Perhaps their routines are distributed over those folders with no individual routine in both?On the other hand, I hadn't spoken about IE.
Ummm, sorry, but you did! In response to my comments (which you quoted) about where IE is installed, you said,
What is the advantage of having both versions if the processor is a 64-bit processor?
I have long avoided IE because of its notoriously poor support for CSS. CSS programmers employ an unbelievable raft of hacks and work-arounds to accomodate IE5, 6 and 7, as with no other browsers. I have read that IE9 is much better. I've only had WIN7 and IE9 for a few weeks. No experience yet.So the only real reason to avoid IE9 today is simply because you prefer the look and feel of another browser. That's all.
Then believe what you read. Note IE7 was the start of Microsoft's serious efforts to comply with W3C Web Standards, and the introduction of "Compatibility Mode" for the reasons you stated. Microsoft what "the" standard and site developers wrote to IE6 if they wanted their sites to stand out. IE8 made significant improvements, and IE9 did again.CSS programmers employ an unbelievable raft of hacks and work-arounds to accomodate IE5, 6 and 7, as with no other browsers. I have read that IE9 is much better.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.