Skip to main content
Super User

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 13
    Rather than answer your question, I would ask - how would you handle \program files\common files ?
    – sgmoore
    Commented Jun 27, 2012 at 19:10
  • 8
    One-liner answer (and hence a comment): since you can easily run any application from any folder without knowing its architecture, then there's clearly no compulsory reason for this separation. It is a matter of convenience to support double installs of applications with both architectures. In some cases it makes a difference as they are not necessarily simple recompiles. The main problem is that 32 bit apps can't load 64 bit dlls, so you can't typically install both versions in the same place. The other alternative is having two "bin" folders for each application.
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Jun 27, 2012 at 23:18
  • 1
    @Synetech I even had programs installing under (x86) just to have x64 binaries.. It's horrible sometimes.
    – sinni800
    Commented Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45
  • 10
    I've always wondered why Microsoft didn't put 64-bit programs in a "Program Files (x64)" instead of *moving" the "legacy" Program Files directory to Program Files (x86)
    – LawrenceC
    Commented Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05
  • 32
    The real mess about the 64/32bit differentiation is that /Windows/System32 contains 64bit content, while /Windows/SysWOW64 contains the 32bit stuff…
    – poke
    Commented Jun 28, 2012 at 11:17