what's the status on a 64-bit build of x^2? I know how hellish it can be porting code that wasn't written with 64-bit compatibility in mind, so I'm not expecting a here-and-now release, just wondering how far you are / if you're working at it at all.
I'm obviously not expecting speed improvements or whatever, but being able to use 64-bit shell extensions would be nice... and there's of course also the issues of 32-bit applications being sandboxed on 64-bit windows (compare %SYSTEMROOT%\system32 in 64-bit explorer.exe and 32-bit x^2).
notwithstanding the dodgy things i'm doing that will port to 64 bit only after a lot of trial & error, the biggest problem is i don't have any 64-bit test machine
nikos wrote:notwithstanding the dodgy things i'm doing that will port to 64 bit only after a lot of trial & error, the biggest problem is i don't have any 64-bit test machine
one day!
They're fanstasticly cheap by now, you can get a very powerful machine for next to nothing... but a temporary solution would be vmware, interestingly enough it can run 64-bit guest OS on a 32-bit host!
tonne wrote:Not all HW can run 64bit on 32bit platform, check this
Interesting - I'm pretty sure my AMD64x2 4400+ chip doesn't have virtualization support, so I didn't think VT/VMX was necessary for intel chips... the vmware detection tool does say my CPU is capable, and it certainly was back when I was on a 32bit host.
Of course you could always go bochs/qemu if your CPU doesn't support running a 64-bit guest, but that comes with quite a speed hit.
By the way, I just discovered that even 32bit applications running on 64bit windows can "view the filesystem as it is" instead of being redirected...
The trick is to call kernel32.Wow64DisableWow64FsRedirection. If you could add this call as an option in xplorer^2, I think a bunch of 64-bit users would be happy - at least I would . (And no, it won't fix the shell extensions, but it will let us browse the real filesystem).
Well i just ended my trial of xplorer² and simply put:
Great piece of software :D and i would register it right away if there was a 64-Bit version
I really need my shell extensions since i have multiple applications which i really need in the context menu.
@everyone reading here about this issue: :!:
Please don´t only read and leave. Take the time to register and post.
Someone got any recommendations for a replacement of xplorer² until the 64 Bit version is hopefully reality? The Explorer under Vista is simply hell.
Or a way to add a context menu entry to open explorer in the current folder (which would still suck but add only one mouseclick when one needs the context menus and another one to close the explorer again.
Until there's a 64bit version of explorer^2 (which could apparently take quite a while...), why not simply just install 32bit versions of the shell extensions you need?
@Nikos, you are right and i say xplorer² is great - but having the context menu for some applications is not a "nice to have" but a thing i constantly use many times per day. And every time i think "arggh".
@snemarch:
Maybe i got the issue wrong (my bad then) but i am not sure about your comment. One of the programs in question is "Power Archiver" which is only available in a 32-Bit version. So on this one i only see the shell extensions in the Explorer but not in xplorer².
),
@everyone reading here about this issue: :!: