Run 32 and 64 bit versions on the same PC

[billyfj]

I have a problem with Windows 7 64 bit. Some shell extensions, ClearCase, do not work with a 64 OS and shell. However they do work with the 32 xplorer2 on 64 Win 7. I installed the 64 bit before discovering this. Then copied the 32 bit files from my other PC to this one.

The shell extensions are there with the 32 bit but not the 64 bit.

Question is: will this cause any problems using both?

[Kilmatead]

It fine to use both, and as they will share the same registry keys all your settings will be shared between them.

The only caveat is that you can't run both at the same time, as starting "one from the other" will simply start a new instance of the one running, if that makes any sense.  So be sure the first is closed before starting the other.

You may, if you wish properly "install" the x86 version (instead of just copying over the files), they will install to separate folders as expected.

[nikos]

you can run both versions simultaneously if you use the /P command line switch

[WimdeLange]

Probably it is in the docs. But why not only use the 32-bit version. Is there much difference between the 64 and 32 bit edition?

[Kilmatead]

Is there much difference between the 64 and 32 bit edition?

Superficially, the answer is "not much", but that's not quite the whole story.

Mainly you're likely to run into the same problem of shell extensions "in reverse", where x64 application extensions don't appear, etc., in lieu of x86 extensions.  You can't win for losing.

There's also the small matter of exactly which filesystem you're viewing.  x86 applications cannot "see" the filesystem's cosmos as a whole - it sees it via the redirection filter of the SysWOW64 (Windows On Windows64 which is kind of like looking at a Pulsar with coloured 3D glasses - the night sky is better than that, as Patrick Moore attests, pince-nez, et al.

See this for a rather technical explanation of filesystem application shells and x86 limitations.  A type of schizophrenia wherein \System32 isn't \System32, or to quote the famous title of a book on neurology by Oliver Sacks (and an opera by Michael Nyman) "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat", best describes the condition.

Also, from the days before x2 x64 existed, an example of someone using x2 x86 butting their head against an invisible wall of filesystem inconsistencies.

As an aside about running both processes at the same time, as they use the same settings, registry-keys, etc, it can be a rather maddening experience to tell one from the other (without looking at the "Help - About x2" screen) so it is heartily disrecommended.  Or discommended.  Or Dismended.  Ah feck, just avoid it unless necessary.

[WimdeLange]

Clear as mud, although your references does show some of the problems. Rereading this several times, clears it up, I think. I saw some of those problems myself, but I thought that was Windows 7 defining "links" (or those things referencing to other locations) for special directories, like libraries. And bit not 64 bits.
C:\USER with Local and Roaming directories is very confusing. I know that sort of things exists and sometimes they are used, but I try to forget them. With the risk that some user is using my programs in a way I didn't expect with strange results.

Trying to install a 32 bit program in the C:\Program Files directory is such a strange action. Whatever you try (x86) is added. And I have not seen an explanation for the need for this.

[Kilmatead]

Clear as mud, although your references does show some of the problems.

Yeah, I know, sorry about that, but it's a fairly murky subject (and my flippant cultural references don't help).  On the plus side, at least it's a different sort of reasoning than the usual "it's all about the memory size, stupid" that you see elsewhere.

Trying to install a 32 bit program in the C:\Program Files directory is such a strange action. Whatever you try (x86) is added. And I have not seen an explanation for the need for this.

Why would you want to?  You're defeating the whole purpose of the x86 segregation policy.

At the risk of boring you to death with links, see this for an overview explanation of Program Files (x86) and its nemesis.  The author seems to think it has something to do with how the x64 system locates registered dll's, but I can't verify this.

And, as Nikos suffered (or rather punished my computer) so much trying to get the x64 installer to work properly (during beta), he's the man to talk to about installers and what not to do.  :roll:

[FrizzleFry]

When I first started running 64 bit W7 I decided to stay with the 32 bit x2 so I could keep using my favorite 32 bit extensions. The problem is that many programs only install a 64 bit extension on 64 bit OSs so they are unavailable to a 32 bit file manager.

So now I am running 64 bit x2 and I have replaced or abandoned all my old 32 bit extensions.

I guess I should try having both versions available... what an annoying mess!

[WimdeLange]

Why would you want to?  You're defeating the whole purpose of the x86 segregation policy.

Normally it does not matter to me. The fact that you must search in two places is not so bad. But there was this program that I use very often in my daily work to access the Oracle databases. After my new laptop with Windows 7, 64 bits, I installed that 32 bits program. Everything looks good, except that it won't connect to any Oracle databases, while every other program connecting to the databases worked.
The problem was an issue that the program had with parenthesis () in the path name. Normally people don't use them, so they found it not a real issue and iti is easily solved by using another directory, but not c:\Program Files offcourse, because that one gets redirected.