win 7 64 bit program files question

You don't specify exactly which program you're using that generates the
vst files, but if you go to
http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...ility-939.html
there is a PDF file that specifies which of their products are and will
be 64-bit versions which would alleviate the problem. In the mean time
you might contact both companies and discuss your dilemma with them.
They would be eminently better qualified to address this.

John wrote:
> I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the
> vst is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64
> bit, can't find them. It's a real problem.
>
> Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
> or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
> makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
It's a design of the x64 structure. 64-bit programs go into the
"Program Files" directory and 32-bit program go int the "Program
Files(x86) directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was
decided when they started on the AMD64 version.
>
> I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
> and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
> that really screw things up?
Yes, it will definitely screw things up.
>
> John

Do NOT delete the Program Files (x86) folder. You will break all kinds of
things. And do NOT force 32-bit programs into the wrong folder. Again, you
will break things. They are separated for a reason.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel




"John" <> wrote in message
news:%23S6q$...
> I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the vst
> is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64 bit,
> can't find them. It's a real problem.
>
> Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
> or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
> makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
>
> I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
> and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
> that really screw things up?
>
> John

And NEVER feed the Gremlins after midnight!

Carlos

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> Do NOT delete the Program Files (x86) folder. You will break all kinds of
> things. And do NOT force 32-bit programs into the wrong folder. Again, you
> will break things. They are separated for a reason.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel
>
>
>
>
> "John" <> wrote in message
> news:%23S6q$...
> > I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the vst
> > is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64 bit,
> > can't find them. It's a real problem.
> >
> > Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
> > or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
> > makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
> >
> > I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
> > and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
> > that really screw things up?
> >
> > John
>
> .
>

I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the
vst is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64
bit, can't find them. It's a real problem.

Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.

I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
that really screw things up?

John

It's Miraslov Philharmonic 32 bit vst. They replied:

You also may need to use this to bridge the 64 to 32 bit correctly.
http://jstuff.wordpress.com/jbridge/

I checked that out but doesn't look very professional.

Cakewalk Sonar is notorious for bad support so I am pretty much stuck.

John

Bobby Johnson wrote:
> You don't specify exactly which program you're using that generates the
> vst files, but if you go to
> http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...ility-939.html
>
> there is a PDF file that specifies which of their products are and will
> be 64-bit versions which would alleviate the problem. In the mean time
> you might contact both companies and discuss your dilemma with them.
> They would be eminently better qualified to address this.
>
> John wrote:
>> I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the
>> vst is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64
>> bit, can't find them. It's a real problem.
>>
>> Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them
>> straight or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the
>> programs? It makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
> It's a design of the x64 structure. 64-bit programs go into the
> "Program Files" directory and 32-bit program go int the "Program
> Files(x86) directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was
> decided when they started on the AMD64 version.
>>
>> I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86)
>> folder and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program
>> files". Would that really screw things up?
> Yes, it will definitely screw things up.
>>
>> John

Hi, Bobby.

> Files(x86) directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was
> decided when they started on the AMD64 version.

The NON-techie explanation that I got after I screwed this up back in WinXP
x64 is that it's not the .exe files themselves that must be segregated, but
all the .dll and other support files that are different for 64-bit and
32-bit.

But I'm an accountant, and long retired at that, not a techie of any kind,
so don't rely on that. But I've often wondered why MS couldn't have let
32-bit apps stay in Program Files and created a new Program Files (x64) for
64-bit apps.

I suppose some day in the distant future, 64-bit apps will rule and Program
Files (x86) will be only a faint memory that we old-timers will reminisce
about. ;^}

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

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

"Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You don't specify exactly which program you're using that generates the
> vst files, but if you go to
> http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...ility-939.html
> there is a PDF file that specifies which of their products are and will be
> 64-bit versions which would alleviate the problem. In the mean time you
> might contact both companies and discuss your dilemma with them. They
> would be eminently better qualified to address this.
>
> John wrote:
>> I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the vst
>> is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64 bit,
>> can't find them. It's a real problem.
>>
>> Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
>> or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
>> makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
> It's a design of the x64 structure. 64-bit programs go into the "Program
> Files" directory and 32-bit program go int the "Program Files(x86)
> directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was decided when
> they started on the AMD64 version.
>>
>> I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
>> and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
>> that really screw things up?
> Yes, it will definitely screw things up.
>>
>> John

Thanks. I remember someone provide an explanation that was supposed to
be logical back when XP x64 was Beta but don't remember now.

What will they do when Win 8 or 9 comes out in 128-bit?


R. C. White wrote:
> Hi, Bobby.
>
>> Files(x86) directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was
>> decided when they started on the AMD64 version.
>
> The NON-techie explanation that I got after I screwed this up back in
> WinXP x64 is that it's not the .exe files themselves that must be
> segregated, but all the .dll and other support files that are different
> for 64-bit and 32-bit.
>
> But I'm an accountant, and long retired at that, not a techie of any
> kind, so don't rely on that. But I've often wondered why MS couldn't
> have let 32-bit apps stay in Program Files and created a new Program
> Files (x64) for 64-bit apps.
>
> I suppose some day in the distant future, 64-bit apps will rule and
> Program Files (x86) will be only a faint memory that we old-timers will
> reminisce about. ;^}
>
> RC

>
> I suppose some day in the distant future, 64-bit apps will rule and
> Program Files (x86) will be only a faint memory that we old-timers will
> reminisce about. ;^}

With any luck, we'll both be long dead by then. :-)

--
Crash

"It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory."
~ W. Edwards Deming ~

R.C.,
The same goes for the \system32 (used for 64-bit) and \syswow64 (used for
32-bit).
Go figure!
Carlos

"R. C. White" wrote:

> Hi, Bobby.
>
> > Files(x86) directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was
> > decided when they started on the AMD64 version.
>
> The NON-techie explanation that I got after I screwed this up back in WinXP
> x64 is that it's not the .exe files themselves that must be segregated, but
> all the .dll and other support files that are different for 64-bit and
> 32-bit.
>
> But I'm an accountant, and long retired at that, not a techie of any kind,
> so don't rely on that. But I've often wondered why MS couldn't have let
> 32-bit apps stay in Program Files and created a new Program Files (x64) for
> 64-bit apps.
>
> I suppose some day in the distant future, 64-bit apps will rule and Program
> Files (x86) will be only a faint memory that we old-timers will reminisce
> about. ;^}
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
>
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64
>
> "Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > You don't specify exactly which program you're using that generates the
> > vst files, but if you go to
> > http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...ility-939.html
> > there is a PDF file that specifies which of their products are and will be
> > 64-bit versions which would alleviate the problem. In the mean time you
> > might contact both companies and discuss your dilemma with them. They
> > would be eminently better qualified to address this.
> >
> > John wrote:
> >> I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the vst
> >> is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64 bit,
> >> can't find them. It's a real problem.
> >>
> >> Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
> >> or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
> >> makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
> > It's a design of the x64 structure. 64-bit programs go into the "Program
> > Files" directory and 32-bit program go int the "Program Files(x86)
> > directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was decided when
> > they started on the AMD64 version.
> >>
> >> I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
> >> and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
> >> that really screw things up?
> > Yes, it will definitely screw things up.
> >>
> >> John
>
> .
>

I'm giving up and reverting to my old vista 32 bit. Luckily saved a
clone of it. Might try updating it to win 7 32 bit I have liked the win
7 desktop etc.

It seems always a mistake to jump into the newest thing. I don't know
why I forget over and over.

John
Carlos wrote:
> R.C.,
> The same goes for the \system32 (used for 64-bit) and \syswow64 (used for
> 32-bit).
> Go figure!
> Carlos
>
> "R. C. White" wrote:
>
>> Hi, Bobby.
>>
>>> Files(x86) directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was
>>> decided when they started on the AMD64 version.
>> The NON-techie explanation that I got after I screwed this up back in WinXP
>> x64 is that it's not the .exe files themselves that must be segregated, but
>> all the .dll and other support files that are different for 64-bit and
>> 32-bit.
>>
>> But I'm an accountant, and long retired at that, not a techie of any kind,
>> so don't rely on that. But I've often wondered why MS couldn't have let
>> 32-bit apps stay in Program Files and created a new Program Files (x64) for
>> 64-bit apps.
>>
>> I suppose some day in the distant future, 64-bit apps will rule and Program
>> Files (x86) will be only a faint memory that we old-timers will reminisce
>> about. ;^}
>>
>> RC
>> --
>> R. C. White, CPA
>> San Marcos, TX
>>
>> Microsoft Windows MVP
>> Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64
>>
>> "Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> You don't specify exactly which program you're using that generates the
>>> vst files, but if you go to
>>> http://www.steinberg.net/en/company/...ility-939.html
>>> there is a PDF file that specifies which of their products are and will be
>>> 64-bit versions which would alleviate the problem. In the mean time you
>>> might contact both companies and discuss your dilemma with them. They
>>> would be eminently better qualified to address this.
>>>
>>> John wrote:
>>>> I'm trying to run vst's with Sonar, a music arranger etc. Because the vst
>>>> is 32 bit it is loaded in program file(86) and Sonar, which is 64 bit,
>>>> can't find them. It's a real problem.
>>>>
>>>> Why are there two program file folders? Is it just to keep them straight
>>>> or is it actually functional as to how windows handles the programs? It
>>>> makes transitioning from 32 bit almost impossible.
>>> It's a design of the x64 structure. 64-bit programs go into the "Program
>>> Files" directory and 32-bit program go int the "Program Files(x86)
>>> directory. Don't know the logic, but that the way it was decided when
>>> they started on the AMD64 version.
>>>> I am thinking of starting over, deleting the program files (x86) folder
>>>> and making sure I redirect every install to plain "program files". Would
>>>> that really screw things up?
>>> Yes, it will definitely screw things up.
>>>> John
>> .
>>