«

When I install a 32-bit application in 64-bit Vista, I found if I install it
into directory [Program Files (x86)], the target of shortcuts it created is
[DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location\etc], but if there is start
in, it's [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files (x86)\Application Location\etc]. If I
select target directory as [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location]
at set up it will be installed into [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application
Location], in 2003 it will convert to [Program Files (x86)] Automatic...

That is correct. 32-bit programs are installed into Program Files (x86) by
default. This is an automatic re-direction that is part of the WOW64
subsystem. (Windows on Windows 64bit).

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"Lolita King" <Lolita > wrote in message
news:ACA7066D-620F-4ED1-8112-...
> When I install a 32-bit application in 64-bit Vista, I found if I install
> it
> into directory [Program Files (x86)], the target of shortcuts it created
> is
> [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location\etc], but if there is
> start
> in, it's [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files (x86)\Application Location\etc]. If
> I
> select target directory as [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application
> Location]
> at set up it will be installed into [DEVICELETTER:\Program
> Files\Application
> Location], in 2003 it will convert to [Program Files (x86)] Automatic...

so the bug you see is that you install a 32 bit program in Vista x64
and

1. it installs to the (x86) Programs hierarchy
2. the shortcut that is created is incorrect and points to Programs

I'm not following the rest of the issues. Can you restate?

I've seen the first two pieces and they appeared to be fixed for me
in 5728.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:25:01 -0700, Lolita King <Lolita
> wrote:

>When I install a 32-bit application in 64-bit Vista, I found if I install it
>into directory [Program Files (x86)], the target of shortcuts it created is
>[DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location\etc], but if there is start
>in, it's [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files (x86)\Application Location\etc]. If I
>select target directory as [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location]
>at set up it will be installed into [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application
>Location], in 2003 it will convert to [Program Files (x86)] Automatic...
--

Barb Bowman
MS Windows-MVP
Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/

Lolita King wrote:

> When I install a 32-bit application in 64-bit Vista, I found if I install it
> into directory [Program Files (x86)], the target of shortcuts it created is
> [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location\etc], but if there is start
> in, it's [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files (x86)\Application Location\etc]. If I
> select target directory as [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location]
> at set up it will be installed into [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application
> Location], in 2003 it will convert to [Program Files (x86)] Automatic...

Lolita:

This is a bug in the version of Vista x64 you are using - the target of
the shortcut is missing the (x86).

This bug is fixed in build 5728. Rumor has it that RC2 will be out
tomorrow (Friday Oct 6).

David Wilkinson

I beleave it would have been in Microsofts interests to publish a list of
programs that it has tested on Vista 64 bit that work.

I have no doutb that it has tested loads of them. It seems that Microsoft
has forgotten its home users.

Read the pages here on this site and its mostly the same subject i.e. this
will not work, that will not work, how do I get this to work etc. It seems
like the old chestnut of 'we have made a new type of auto which is fantastic
buy it now!

Only later it come out to say, 'we did what we said, we did not mention that
the is no fuel to power it!'
--
jannerhank


"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> That is correct. 32-bit programs are installed into Program Files (x86) by
> default. This is an automatic re-direction that is part of the WOW64
> subsystem. (Windows on Windows 64bit).
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
>
> "Lolita King" <Lolita > wrote in message
> news:ACA7066D-620F-4ED1-8112-...
> > When I install a 32-bit application in 64-bit Vista, I found if I install
> > it
> > into directory [Program Files (x86)], the target of shortcuts it created
> > is
> > [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application Location\etc], but if there is
> > start
> > in, it's [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files (x86)\Application Location\etc]. If
> > I
> > select target directory as [DEVICELETTER:\Program Files\Application
> > Location]
> > at set up it will be installed into [DEVICELETTER:\Program
> > Files\Application
> > Location], in 2003 it will convert to [Program Files (x86)] Automatic...
>

A great deal of work has been put into Windows XP Pro x64 Editions, and even
more work on Windows Vista x64 versions, to support the broad range of
existing applications where possible. Badly written installers that make
assumptions about directories will have problems on x64, but also on systems
with non-standard locations due to user configuration.

There's a lot of buggy unsupported software out there, and there's only so
much that can be done to keep it working year after year after year on
modern OSs and h/w.

At this point it's a matter of the creators of applications making x64
compatibility a priority in their product plans and testing. The more broad
the user community, the more likely it is that x64 will be taking seriously.
Windows Vista makes x64 versions widely available, so the number of users
with x64 Oses is going to increase dramatically. For old applications, it's
always going to be a bit dodgy when moving to a new OS of any kind, much
less a fundamental change like 64-bit native from 32-bit native. Compared to
the transition from 16-bit Windows to 32-bit Windows, this one is a whole
lot smoother.

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, Game Technology Group

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

I agree about the pain level of this one compared to 16 -> 32bit. We tend to
forget how painful that was, but it was not a pretty sight for many. FWIW, I
think MS made the right decision about drawing a line in the sand here on
some backwards compatibility issues. At some point you simple have to say
enough is enough. Because if you don't, you limit the things you can do
moving forward.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
news:45590b8e$...
>A great deal of work has been put into Windows XP Pro x64 Editions, and
>even more work on Windows Vista x64 versions, to support the broad range of
>existing applications where possible. Badly written installers that make
>assumptions about directories will have problems on x64, but also on
>systems with non-standard locations due to user configuration.
>
> There's a lot of buggy unsupported software out there, and there's only so
> much that can be done to keep it working year after year after year on
> modern OSs and h/w.
>
> At this point it's a matter of the creators of applications making x64
> compatibility a priority in their product plans and testing. The more
> broad the user community, the more likely it is that x64 will be taking
> seriously. Windows Vista makes x64 versions widely available, so the
> number of users with x64 Oses is going to increase dramatically. For old
> applications, it's always going to be a bit dodgy when moving to a new OS
> of any kind, much less a fundamental change like 64-bit native from 32-bit
> native. Compared to the transition from 16-bit Windows to 32-bit Windows,
> this one is a whole lot smoother.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, Game Technology Group
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
>
>