Installing Adobe Reader in the 32 bit part of 64 bit win7

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by T.Wahl, Jun 17, 2010.

  1. T.Wahl

    T.Wahl Guest

    I am running 64 bit Win7.
    Adobe Reader is automatically installing in C:/Programfiles (x86). (64 bit,
    I think)
    I would like to install the program in C:/Programfiles (32bit part, I
    presume).
    The reason is that I want Adobe Reader to show PDF documents as a thumbnail
    in Explorer instead of the anonymous PDF icon.
    As you may know,there is no 64 bit driver for Adobe Reader, only a "Win7
    driver"
    I am using Win7 32 bit at work and PDF files are shown as thumbnails
    (showing the first page of the document)

    Is there any way of forcing a program (Adobe Reader) to be installed as a
    "32 bit program" in C:/Programfiles?

    Best regards
    Trond W
     
    T.Wahl, Jun 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. T.Wahl

    Jerry Guest

    A 32-bit program in Win7 64-bit, by default, installs in \Program Files
    (x86) and a 64-bit program install in \Program Files

    As there is only a 32-bit verion of Adobe Reader presently available it is
    installing in the correct location.

    "T.Wahl" <> wrote in message
    news:OK$U%...
    >I am running 64 bit Win7.
    > Adobe Reader is automatically installing in C:/Programfiles (x86). (64
    > bit, I think)
    > I would like to install the program in C:/Programfiles (32bit part, I
    > presume).
    > The reason is that I want Adobe Reader to show PDF documents as a
    > thumbnail in Explorer instead of the anonymous PDF icon.
    > As you may know,there is no 64 bit driver for Adobe Reader, only a "Win7
    > driver"
    > I am using Win7 32 bit at work and PDF files are shown as thumbnails
    > (showing the first page of the document)
    >
    > Is there any way of forcing a program (Adobe Reader) to be installed as a
    > "32 bit program" in C:/Programfiles?
    >
    > Best regards
    > Trond W
     
    Jerry, Jun 17, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. T.Wahl

    Jeff Zeitlin Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:21:02 +0200, "T.Wahl" <> wrote:

    >I am running 64 bit Win7.
    >Adobe Reader is automatically installing in C:/Programfiles (x86). (64 bit,
    >I think)
    >I would like to install the program in C:/Programfiles (32bit part, I
    >presume).
    >The reason is that I want Adobe Reader to show PDF documents as a thumbnail
    >in Explorer instead of the anonymous PDF icon.
    >As you may know,there is no 64 bit driver for Adobe Reader, only a "Win7
    >driver"
    >I am using Win7 32 bit at work and PDF files are shown as thumbnails
    >(showing the first page of the document)
    >
    >Is there any way of forcing a program (Adobe Reader) to be installed as a
    >"32 bit program" in C:/Programfiles?


    You've got it backwards - When running Win7/64-bit, 32-bit programs get
    installed into the Program Files (x86) folder; Program Files is for
    64-bit programs. Adober Reader is being installed correctly for your
    system.
     
    Jeff Zeitlin, Jun 18, 2010
    #3
  4. See Fixes for 64-bit Adobe Reader preview handler and thumbnails
    @ http://www.pretentiousname.com/adobe_pdf_x64_fix/index.html#downl

    On 2010-06-17 15:21, T.Wahl wrote:
    > I am running 64 bit Win7.
    > Adobe Reader is automatically installing in C:/Programfiles (x86). (64
    > bit, I think)
    > I would like to install the program in C:/Programfiles (32bit part, I
    > presume).
    > The reason is that I want Adobe Reader to show PDF documents as a
    > thumbnail in Explorer instead of the anonymous PDF icon.
    > As you may know,there is no 64 bit driver for Adobe Reader, only a "Win7
    > driver"
    > I am using Win7 32 bit at work and PDF files are shown as thumbnails
    > (showing the first page of the document)
    >
    > Is there any way of forcing a program (Adobe Reader) to be installed as
    > a "32 bit program" in C:/Programfiles?
    >
    > Best regards
    > Trond W
     
    Bobby Johnson, Jun 18, 2010
    #4
  5. T.Wahl

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Trond.

    As Jeff said, you've got it backwards. Actually, in my opinion, it is
    Microsoft who "got it backwards"! :>(

    When 64-bit Windows XP arrived - about 5 years ago - I installed it on my
    new 64-bit CPU/mobo. I saw this NEW "Program Files (x86)" folder. Like
    you, I assumed that, since this folder did not exist in my 32-bit WinXP,
    then it MUST be for 64-bit apps. All my apps at that time were 32-bit, of
    course, so I forced them all into the original Program Files folder. It
    took several months for me to learn that I was 180 degrees out of sync! :>(

    I was multi-booting WinXP, Win2K and Win98 before WinXP X64, and installing
    each app multiple times into a single Program Files folder on a "neutral"
    drive (one with no OS on it), letting each setup file write
    platform-specific information into each Registry, but saving disk space by
    having them all use the single copy of the .exe, .dll etc. files. This
    worked well - until X64. Before I learned how to use that x86 folder, I had
    hopelessly tangled multiple installations of Excel (for example) in
    E:\Program Files. WinXP Pro correctly recognized it as a 32-bit app, but
    WinXP X64 thought it was a 64-bit app. I'm not a techie, but my
    understanding is that the problem is not just with the .exe file itself, but
    with the many .dll and other support files that need to be in the proper
    folder so that the 64-bit OS can find them and match them up.

    Since learning that "x86" refers to the Intel x86 family of 32-bit CPUs
    (8086, 80286, etc.), I've accepted Microsoft's backwards naming. And since
    disk space is much cheaper now, I no longer try to share app installations
    between Windows versions. All 32-bit apps go into PF86 (my own
    abbreviation) and all 64-bit apps into PF. But I still think that if MS had
    created a new Program Files (x64), rather than what they did, it would have
    been a lot less confusing for us users.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64)

    "T.Wahl" <> wrote in message
    news:OK$U#...
    > I am running 64 bit Win7.
    > Adobe Reader is automatically installing in C:/Programfiles (x86). (64
    > bit, I think)
    > I would like to install the program in C:/Programfiles (32bit part, I
    > presume).
    > The reason is that I want Adobe Reader to show PDF documents as a
    > thumbnail in Explorer instead of the anonymous PDF icon.
    > As you may know,there is no 64 bit driver for Adobe Reader, only a "Win7
    > driver"
    > I am using Win7 32 bit at work and PDF files are shown as thumbnails
    > (showing the first page of the document)
    >
    > Is there any way of forcing a program (Adobe Reader) to be installed as a
    > "32 bit program" in C:/Programfiles?
    >
    > Best regards
    > Trond W
     
    R. C. White, Jun 18, 2010
    #5
  6. T.Wahl

    Carlos Guest

    R.C.,
    The Program Files naming makes sense.
    But using \windows\system32 for all the 64-bit stuff...
    Still trying to find any logic there.
    :)
    Carlos

    "R. C. White" wrote:

    > Hi, Trond.
    >
    > As Jeff said, you've got it backwards. Actually, in my opinion, it is
    > Microsoft who "got it backwards"! :>(
    >
    > When 64-bit Windows XP arrived - about 5 years ago - I installed it on my
    > new 64-bit CPU/mobo. I saw this NEW "Program Files (x86)" folder. Like
    > you, I assumed that, since this folder did not exist in my 32-bit WinXP,
    > then it MUST be for 64-bit apps. All my apps at that time were 32-bit, of
    > course, so I forced them all into the original Program Files folder. It
    > took several months for me to learn that I was 180 degrees out of sync! :>(
    >
    > I was multi-booting WinXP, Win2K and Win98 before WinXP X64, and installing
    > each app multiple times into a single Program Files folder on a "neutral"
    > drive (one with no OS on it), letting each setup file write
    > platform-specific information into each Registry, but saving disk space by
    > having them all use the single copy of the .exe, .dll etc. files. This
    > worked well - until X64. Before I learned how to use that x86 folder, I had
    > hopelessly tangled multiple installations of Excel (for example) in
    > E:\Program Files. WinXP Pro correctly recognized it as a 32-bit app, but
    > WinXP X64 thought it was a 64-bit app. I'm not a techie, but my
    > understanding is that the problem is not just with the .exe file itself, but
    > with the many .dll and other support files that need to be in the proper
    > folder so that the 64-bit OS can find them and match them up.
    >
    > Since learning that "x86" refers to the Intel x86 family of 32-bit CPUs
    > (8086, 80286, etc.), I've accepted Microsoft's backwards naming. And since
    > disk space is much cheaper now, I no longer try to share app installations
    > between Windows versions. All 32-bit apps go into PF86 (my own
    > abbreviation) and all 64-bit apps into PF. But I still think that if MS had
    > created a new Program Files (x64), rather than what they did, it would have
    > been a lot less confusing for us users.
    >
    > RC
    > --
    > R. C. White, CPA
    > San Marcos, TX
    >
    > Microsoft Windows MVP
    > Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64)
    >
    > "T.Wahl" <> wrote in message
    > news:OK$U#...
    > > I am running 64 bit Win7.
    > > Adobe Reader is automatically installing in C:/Programfiles (x86). (64
    > > bit, I think)
    > > I would like to install the program in C:/Programfiles (32bit part, I
    > > presume).
    > > The reason is that I want Adobe Reader to show PDF documents as a
    > > thumbnail in Explorer instead of the anonymous PDF icon.
    > > As you may know,there is no 64 bit driver for Adobe Reader, only a "Win7
    > > driver"
    > > I am using Win7 32 bit at work and PDF files are shown as thumbnails
    > > (showing the first page of the document)
    > >
    > > Is there any way of forcing a program (Adobe Reader) to be installed as a
    > > "32 bit program" in C:/Programfiles?
    > >
    > > Best regards
    > > Trond W

    >
     
    Carlos, Jun 18, 2010
    #6
  7. T.Wahl

    Dave Warren Guest

    In message <> "R. C.
    White" <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >Since learning that "x86" refers to the Intel x86 family of 32-bit CPUs
    >(8086, 80286, etc.), I've accepted Microsoft's backwards naming. And since
    >disk space is much cheaper now, I no longer try to share app installations
    >between Windows versions. All 32-bit apps go into PF86 (my own
    >abbreviation) and all 64-bit apps into PF. But I still think that if MS had
    >created a new Program Files (x64), rather than what they did, it would have
    >been a lot less confusing for us users.


    MS' mistake was omitting the architecture at all. This is a much older
    problem than XP, going back to when NT ran on multiple architectures it
    was decided that "Program Files" would be the default location for any
    native application, and non-native applications would get tossed into
    "Program Files (architecture type)"

    This causes a small amount of confusion for people first running a
    non-typical architecture, especially since no one has seen a non-native
    application in a very long time.
     
    Dave Warren, Jun 18, 2010
    #7
  8. T.Wahl

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Dave.

    Thanks for that history and background!

    I'm not techie enough to understand it completely, but that is the first
    explanation I've heard that made any sense to me.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64)

    "Dave Warren" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <> "R. C.
    > White" <> was claimed to have wrote:
    >
    >>Since learning that "x86" refers to the Intel x86 family of 32-bit CPUs
    >>(8086, 80286, etc.), I've accepted Microsoft's backwards naming. And
    >>since
    >>disk space is much cheaper now, I no longer try to share app installations
    >>between Windows versions. All 32-bit apps go into PF86 (my own
    >>abbreviation) and all 64-bit apps into PF. But I still think that if MS
    >>had
    >>created a new Program Files (x64), rather than what they did, it would
    >>have
    >>been a lot less confusing for us users.

    >
    > MS' mistake was omitting the architecture at all. This is a much older
    > problem than XP, going back to when NT ran on multiple architectures it
    > was decided that "Program Files" would be the default location for any
    > native application, and non-native applications would get tossed into
    > "Program Files (architecture type)"
    >
    > This causes a small amount of confusion for people first running a
    > non-typical architecture, especially since no one has seen a non-native
    > application in a very long time.
     
    R. C. White, Jun 18, 2010
    #8
  9. "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi, Trond.
    >
    > As Jeff said, you've got it backwards. Actually, in my opinion, it is
    > Microsoft who "got it backwards"! :>(



    They got it backwards the first time and now they seem to be trying to avoid
    the same error. E.g. when Win32 first happened it could have happened in
    System and System16 created for running old apps. If that had happened
    then there would be clear reason to have X64 in System and System32
    available if necessary. Notice that 16-bit support has been dropped in W7
    but we still have an empty System folder! I think the problem then was
    that things weren't as parameterized as they are now, so if that logical
    change had been made too much 16-bit stuff would not have worked without
    having to be rewritten.


    ---
     
    Robert Aldwinckle, Jun 19, 2010
    #9
  10. T.Wahl

    Jeff Zeitlin Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:23:37 -0500, "R. C. White" <>
    wrote:

    >Since learning that "x86" refers to the Intel x86 family of 32-bit CPUs
    >(8086, 80286, etc.), I've accepted Microsoft's backwards naming. And since
    >disk space is much cheaper now, I no longer try to share app installations
    >between Windows versions. All 32-bit apps go into PF86 (my own
    >abbreviation) and all 64-bit apps into PF. But I still think that if MS had
    >created a new Program Files (x64), rather than what they did, it would have
    >been a lot less confusing for us users.


    An even better choice on MS's part would have been that with the advent
    of 64-bit version of the OS, drop the un-modified "Program Files"
    directory/folder entirely; put 32-bit executables into "Program Files
    (32-bit)" and 64-bit executables into "Program Files (64-bit)". That
    way, there'd have been no confusion whatsoever. Similarly for the
    Windows/System directory/folder; ...System32 and ...System64 would have
    been the better choice - and in fact, consistent with what they
    apparently intended to do with the advent of 32-bit Windows, when
    "System" and "System32" were created; System was 16-bit supporting files
    (e.g., DLLs), while the new System32 was for the new 32-bit supporting
    files.

    That's all in the past, now, and we have to live with what MS /actually/
    did instead of what they /should/ have done...
     
    Jeff Zeitlin, Jun 19, 2010
    #10
  11. T.Wahl

    KHIA Guest

    what do you mean?
     
    KHIA, Jun 26, 2010
    #11
  12. T.Wahl

    Dave Warren Guest

    In message <> "KHIA"
    <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >what do you mean?


    What does who mean? About what?
     
    Dave Warren, Jun 26, 2010
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. LAH

    Adobe Acrobat & Adobe Reader

    LAH, Apr 11, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,189
    pcbutts1
    Apr 11, 2005
  2. vid
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    494
  3. jollyjimpoppy

    Easy part done, now the hard part!!

    jollyjimpoppy, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
    jollyjimpoppy
    Sep 10, 2003
  4. Warren Postma
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,539
    FlopShot
    Nov 20, 2009
  5. bisooooo

    Problem installing device driver on Win7 x64

    bisooooo, Feb 15, 2011, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,343
    bisooooo
    Feb 15, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page