SysWOW64??

I located a spyware SYSLEM.EXE and sucessfully cleaned it.I found it in the
folder "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\". But this folder seems to contain files n
folders similar to that in " C:\Windows\System32 ". Now Im having a doubt as
to whether SysWOW64 is a valid Vista folder or was it created by the spyware.
Im on Vista Ultimate. Help anyone????

Seems valid

http://www.google.com/search?q=SysWO...e7&rlz=1I7SUNA

"NISH" <> wrote in message
news:91123A6E-398F-410D-A666-...
>I located a spyware SYSLEM.EXE and sucessfully cleaned it.I found it in the
> folder "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\". But this folder seems to contain files n
> folders similar to that in " C:\Windows\System32 ". Now Im having a doubt
> as
> to whether SysWOW64 is a valid Vista folder or was it created by the
> spyware.
> Im on Vista Ultimate. Help anyone????

NISH <> wrote:

> But this folder seems to contain files n folders similar to that
> in " C:\Windows\System32 ". Now Im having a doubt as to whether
> SysWOW64 is a valid Vista folder or was it created by the spyware.

It's a valid Vista folder.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

It is valid, if (and only if) you're running 64-bit Vista.

WoW64 stands for "Windows on 64-bit Windows", and it contains all the 32-bit
binary files required for compatibility, which run on top of the 64 bit
Windows. So, yeah" it looks like a double copy of everything in System32
(which despite the directory name, are actually 64-bit binaries).

If you are running 32 bit Windows then finding this SysWoW64 directory is a
bit weird ...

Hope it helps
Andrew

You have system32 (for.... 32 bit system files)
SysWOW64 is really only a fancy name for system64 (for 64 bit system files.)

Of course things are not quite that simple as anyone who has tried to
install Flash 9 on a 64 bit system will know.
Sticking files in in the wrong system folder and wondering why it can't find
them isn't helpful


Phypps



"NISH" <> wrote in message
news:91123A6E-398F-410D-A666-...
>I located a spyware SYSLEM.EXE and sucessfully cleaned it.I found it in the
> folder "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\". But this folder seems to contain files n
> folders similar to that in " C:\Windows\System32 ". Now Im having a doubt
> as
> to whether SysWOW64 is a valid Vista folder or was it created by the
> spyware.
> Im on Vista Ultimate. Help anyone????

"phypps" <> wrote ...
> You have system32 (for.... 32 bit system files)
> SysWOW64 is really only a fancy name for system64 (for 64 bit system
> files.)

It's actually the other way round ...

64 bit files go into System32, and 32 bit files go into SysWoW64.

Yes it sounds crazy ... but the System32 name had to be preserved for
compatibility reasons, even when the directory now holds 64 bit binaries.

"SysWOW64" actually makes sense (kinda) as a name ... this is "Windows,
running on Win64"; ie, 32 bit binaries, running on top of a 64 bit OS.

For confirmation and more background, see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...4/default.aspx

Cheers
Andrew

I stand corrected (though I was sort of right in principle in answer to the
original question)
I didn't realise that this is more sleight of hand redirection in Vista.
Of course it makes sense if you think about it.
Thanks for putting me right.

Phypps


"Andrew McLaren" <> wrote in message
news:4E61C8BF-4162-4BE7-BD5E-...
> "phypps" <> wrote ...
>> You have system32 (for.... 32 bit system files)
>> SysWOW64 is really only a fancy name for system64 (for 64 bit system
>> files.)
>
> It's actually the other way round ...
>
> 64 bit files go into System32, and 32 bit files go into SysWoW64.
>
> Yes it sounds crazy ... but the System32 name had to be preserved for
> compatibility reasons, even when the directory now holds 64 bit binaries.
>
> "SysWOW64" actually makes sense (kinda) as a name ... this is "Windows,
> running on Win64"; ie, 32 bit binaries, running on top of a 64 bit OS.
>
> For confirmation and more background, see
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...4/default.aspx
>
> Cheers
> Andrew

hehe...

"Andrew McLaren" <> wrote in message
news:4E61C8BF-4162-4BE7-BD5E-...
> "phypps" <> wrote ...
>> You have system32 (for.... 32 bit system files)
>> SysWOW64 is really only a fancy name for system64 (for 64 bit system
>> files.)
>
> It's actually the other way round ...
>
> 64 bit files go into System32, and 32 bit files go into SysWoW64.
>
> Yes it sounds crazy ... but the System32 name had to be preserved for
> compatibility reasons, even when the directory now holds 64 bit binaries.
>
> "SysWOW64" actually makes sense (kinda) as a name ... this is "Windows,
> running on Win64"; ie, 32 bit binaries, running on top of a 64 bit OS.
>
> For confirmation and more background, see
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...4/default.aspx
>
> Cheers
> Andrew

I wonder why they didn't rename it to System64 and make a junction fro
System32 to there to maintain compatibility. It seems *really* stupid t
put 64bit dlls in a folder that says 32.

They could keep the 32bit dlls in SysWOW64 (which makes sense, despit
the confusing name if you don't know what it stands for)

--
Domsy