• Removing (x86) during installations on x64 systems.
    24 replies, posted
I often install 32 bit programs, and I'm kind of getting annoyed at Windows constantly installing things the (x86) program files. I'd rather it all be grouped together. Is there a way to prevent it from doing that during installations?
Why does it bother you exactly? [editline]07:41PM[/editline] Fuck bad reading. [editline]07:41PM[/editline] Well then you know what's 64-bit and what's 32-bit.
I think it's possible with a registry edit but it probably isn't worth the trouble.
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;19774610]I think it's possible with a registry edit but it probably isn't worth the trouble.[/QUOTE] Causes problems.
Manually select for the installers to use the x64 directory? It's not that bad is it?
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;19774687]Manually select for the installers to use the x64 directory? It's not that bad is it?[/QUOTE] A lot of installers don't give you the option because the people who made them are fucking idiots.
[QUOTE=Panda X;19774699]A lot of installers don't give you the option because the people who made them are fucking idiots.[/QUOTE] Such as what? Most installers at least let you select it if you press advanced.
If you install 64-bit installers only, this shouldn't be an issue. Leave 32-bit in the dust to rot in the last decade. This is 2010 for fuck's sake, 32-bit operating systems need to fucking die already. We have reached the 4GB limitation that plagues the 32-bit era, further pushing 64-bit to be the norm. I went 64-bit back when XP x64 came out, and never looked back.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19798586]If you install 64-bit installers only, this shouldn't be an issue. Leave 32-bit in the dust to rot in the last decade. This is 2010 for fuck's sake, 32-bit operating systems need to fucking die already. We have reached the 4GB limitation that plagues the 32-bit era, further pushing 64-bit to be the norm. I went 64-bit back when XP x64 came out, and never looked back.[/QUOTE] If consumers stop supporting 32-bit, it's gonna force more support for 64-bit. :awesome:
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19798586]If you install 64-bit installers only, this shouldn't be an issue. Leave 32-bit in the dust to rot in the last decade. This is 2010 for fuck's sake, 32-bit operating systems need to fucking die already. We have reached the 4GB limitation that plagues the 32-bit era, further pushing 64-bit to be the norm. I went 64-bit back when XP x64 came out, and never looked back.[/QUOTE] 64-bit is the mainstream as most retailers now only carry x64 (excluding netbooks). It's just the damn programmers who've yet to move over entirely.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19798586]If you install 64-bit installers only, this shouldn't be an issue. Leave 32-bit in the dust to rot in the last decade. This is 2010 for fuck's sake, 32-bit operating systems need to fucking die already. We have reached the 4GB limitation that plagues the 32-bit era, further pushing 64-bit to be the norm. I went 64-bit back when XP x64 came out, and never looked back.[/QUOTE] I doubt that everything you ever use on your computer has an x64 installer, a lot of things still don't.
[QUOTE=Ultralast;19831377]I doubt that everything you ever use on your computer has an x64 installer, a lot of things still don't.[/QUOTE] And some things like iTunes use a 64 bit installer just to install 32 bit iTunes :v:
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19798586]We have reached the 4GB limitation that plagues the 32-bit era,[/QUOTE] No, we haven't. Microsoft wants you to use 64-bit, otherwise the 4 GB limitation would be a non-issue.
[QUOTE=gparent;19846786]No, we haven't. Microsoft wants you to use 64-bit, otherwise the 4 GB limitation would be a non-issue.[/QUOTE] I really want to hear your explanation for this sentence.
[QUOTE=Specter;19917001]I really want to hear your explanation for this sentence.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension[/url]
[QUOTE=Roast Beast;19917048][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah, that page will explain it well to the above poster and the two other idiots who rated me dumb because they thought I was "sticking it to the man!1111!". Truth is, Microsoft limits desktop 32-bit editions to 4 GB on purpose. The server editions, with PAE enabled, have higher memory limits than that.
[quote=Wikipedia Article posted]x86 processor hardware architecture is augmented with additional address lines used to select the additional memory, so physical address size is increased from 32 bits to 36 bits. This, theoretically, increases maximum physical memory size from 4 GB to 64 GB. The 32-bit size of the virtual address is not changed, so regular application software continues to use instructions with 32-bit addresses and (in a flat memory model) is limited to 4 gigabytes of virtual address space. The operating system uses page tables to map this 4 GB address space into the 64 GB of physical memory.[/quote] The system is still slower because it can't use the full 64 bit pipe.
[QUOTE=gparent;19917112]Yeah, that page will explain it well to the above poster and the two other idiots who rated me dumb because they thought I was "sticking it to the man!1111!".[/QUOTE] Well you usually pop-off with some kind of bullshit, so we had to be sure.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19917710]Well you usually pop-off with some kind of bullshit, so we had to be sure.[/QUOTE] That's FP for you: click box and ask questions later.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19917710]Well you usually pop-off with some kind of bullshit, so we had to be sure.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is this, exactly? EDIT: I'm pretty sure only [i]you[/i] had to be sure. People who know what they're talking about when it comes down to memory limits understand that 4 GB isn't the absolute 32-bit limit, and people who know me understand that I try to stick to facts and to back up my claims. I don't do bullshit. I don't troll Windows users like PvtCupcakes does. [QUOTE=Specter;19917626]The system is still slower because it can't use the full 64 bit pipe.[/QUOTE] Well obviously. According to benchmarks by the Gentoo or Ubuntu team (I forgot which), the overhead was largely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=gparent;19917960]Well obviously. According to benchmarks by the Gentoo or Ubuntu team (I forgot which), the overhead was largely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Good to know. I'm curious as to see the numbers though. Thanks for the heads up.
[QUOTE=Specter;19918179]Good to know. I'm curious as to see the numbers though. Thanks for the heads up.[/QUOTE] I'll try to look for them! I think it was around 3%. Basically it came up in a Ubuntu forum thread about how their desktop doesn't ship with a PAE kernel while their server edition did, and in that thread there was a link to the Gentoo forums about the overhead, AFAIK. EDIT: I haven't found the thread, but here's a Red Hat whitepaper showing that PAE shows a 0 - 10% performance hit depending on the workload, with the average on their test machines being 1%. [url]http://people.redhat.com/nmurray/RHEL-2.1-VM-whitepaper.pdf[/url] (page 9)
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19917710]Well you usually pop-off with some kind of bullshit, so we had to be sure.[/QUOTE] No he doesn't.
My thread turns into a completely unrelated war.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;19845991]And some things like iTunes use a 64 bit installer just to install 32 bit iTunes :v:[/QUOTE] iTunes is 32bit, the the drivers it installs aren't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.