The use of "Program Files" at all is a convenience, not a necessity.
However, Vista does in general separate out the 32-bit and 64-bit programs
when allowed to, as you have noted. It certainly is not necessary but may
come in handy to know which "flavor" of a program you have installed.
"Mark G." <askmefirst@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OrjTqfRhJHA.5408@xxxxxx
Quote:
> So far... so good. Vista is kind of weird in that it will install
> applications into either a regular "program files" folder or one denoted
> with "x86". Am assuming because of the whole 64bit deal it needs to
> seperate it. But with the supposedly backwards compatible, it would seem
> that wouldn't be necessary. but then what do I know. Any thoughts here?
>
>
> "Ian D" <taurus@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:e8aP64AfJHA.5328@xxxxxx Quote:
>>
>> "oscar" <oscar@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:6CEFA328-190C-430D-B7DE-9B422CA710C7@xxxxxx Quote:
>>>I have found all of my software that runs on XP also runs on Vista 32 and
>>>64
>>> bit systems. The only exception is Acronis True Image Home 2009 which
>>> has
>>> problems significant enough that I won't use it on a 64 bit system.
>>> --
>>> oscar 
>>>
>>> ...Right click is your very good friend...
>>>
>>> >>
>> That's interesting. I've used TI 10 Home on Vista Ultimate 64
>> with no problems, although I've only been using cloning, not
>> imaging.
>> >
>