Where to install old 32-bit apps? PF or PF (x86)?

[Dick Baker]

Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP.

I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the
new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go
into Program Files.

Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)?

 

[R. C. White]

?Hi, Dick.

Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about
Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't insist
that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install them into the
right folder. ;<)

When I first saw PF86 in WinXP x64 about 5 years ago it confused me, too.
And before I got it straightened out, I had already installed several big
32-bit apps (the Office suite, for example), overriding the defaults and
insisting that they install into Program Files. With no guidance available
at that time, my assumption was that this NEW PF86 folder was for NEW 64-bit
apps. It was months later when I learned that the "x86" referred to the
8086/80286/80486, etc. line of Intel CPUs - all 32-bit. By then, my folders
were so confused that I had to just install all my apps again - into the
right places this time.

The reason for the two PF folders, as you probably know, is so that 64-bit
Windows (WinXP/Vista/Win7 - and server versions) can properly associate the
apps with the infrastructure (dlls, drives, etc.) for them.

You apparently are running 64-bit Win7, because you'll never see PF86 in
32-bit Win7. But 64-bit Win7 is smart enough to recognize older apps and
guide them into PF86 - unless you (mis)guide them into the wrong PF folder.
But watch carefully during the installation, just to be sure. ;^}

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3502.0922) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1 RC


"Dick Baker" wrote in message
Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP.

I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the
new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go
into Program Files.

Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)?

 

[Dick Baker]

?Hi, Dick.

Your applications don't need to know anything about 64-bit - or about
Program Files (x86), but that's where they will end up if you don't
insist that they go elsewhere. Win7 x64 is smart enough to install
them into the right folder. ;<)

Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install
destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't
realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially since
I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of
C:\PF.

 

[JKConey]

Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP.

I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the
new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go
into Program Files.

Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)?

I put them where I like

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install
destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't
realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially since
I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of
C:\PF.

Those C:\SomeProgram guys are bad actors, in my view. Even in 32-bit
systems, they are overriding what Windows normally does, apparently by
overriding or not using the standard Windows mechanisms.

Some of them won't work right if you get a chance to make your own
choice and take advantage of it...

I hereby growl at them

 

[Joe Morris]

Thanks for the reassurance. I presumed that the C:\Program Files install
destination was hardwired into an application's install routine--I didn't
realize that the operating system was guiding them there. Especially
since
I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of
C:\PF.

The target folder used by a setup program on a 64-bit Windows system will
*usually* pick the correct PF/PF(x86) folder, but that's not guaranteed. It
all depends on the design of the setup program.

Most recently released applications (for some undefined but relatively large
value of "recent") are aware of the way that 64-bit Windows systems split
the PF folders but if you're trying to convince an antique application to
install it might have been designed before anyone bothered with 64-bit
systems, meaning that "%SystemDrive%\Program Files" or "%ProgramFiles%" (or
worse, "C:\Progra~1") is assumed.

The only (sort-of) good thing is that the really old stuff has a good chance
of being 16-bit Windows applications, which 64-bit Windows will refuse to
run.

Joe Morris

 

[xfile]

Especially since
I've run into a few apps that insist on installing under C:\ instead of
C:\PF.

Yes, not normal but it does happen. I recently purchased a PC flight
simulation game called War Birds Dogfight which was released at the end of
*2009*, and surprisingly, it is installed under C:\ instead of PF(x86).

This is the only program in recent years that I have experienced such
behavior, so yes, there are some programs still doing so and Windows may not
always direct to the proper destinations.

 

[Stan Brown]

Just got my first Win 7 machine, a notebook. Desktop is XP.

I'll want to install lots of old XP (and even Win98) applications on the
new machine; they won't know about Program Files (x86) and will want to go
into Program Files.

Question: Should I just let them, or must I force them into (x86)?

I think if you try the installer you will see that it wants to go
into (x86).

What is a mystery to me is why we have separate Program Files and
Program Files (x86) folders. After all, Windows knows which programs
must be run in compatibility mode, so what is the need to put them in
a separate folder? It seems redundant.

 

[Stan Brown]

What is a mystery to me is why we have separate Program Files and
Program Files (x86) folders. After all, Windows knows which programs
must be run in compatibility mode, so what is the need to put them in
a separate folder? It seems redundant.

And I see that R. C. White answered that very question:

 

[EB]

And I see that R. C. White answered that very question:

So what happens (or doesn't happen) when a program is installed in the
wrong directory? This happened the other day when I installed an old 32-bit
program.

 

[Seth]

And I see that R. C. White answered that very question:

And while I don't have any citations to refute the above, it doesn't make
sense to me. The OS has had no problems for years doing just what is
suggested above despite many people installing apps in entirely custom
locations (lie in the case of server builds I put applications that run on
the server on D:, usually rooted since it is a dedicated APP drive) and
Windows has no problems at all.

The reason (going form memory here) is for cases (few at that) where one
might have to install 2 of the same program, one of them 32b and one 64b.
Obviously the 2 can't occupy the same space so they need a separate tree.
Thinking forward to the future it made sense for the 64b flavor to get the
"standard" folder structure while the older/legacy 32b version get the "odd
structure" in the hopes of in the future being phased out.