Vista - Windows Vista b6000 Ultimate Ed. installations' disk space usagesbetween 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Hello.

Is it me or are the installed disk usages significantly different (a few
GB) between a 32-bit and a 64-bit installation? This is on the same
machine (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe with an Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU), same
Ultimate Edition, and similiar options in installation. I did notice an
extra Program Files (x86) in my C:\ root directory that takes over 300
MB. Is this the only difference that makes the disk usage different?

Thank you in advance.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.

Yes, they are different and by about 3GB after installation.

"Phillip Pi" <phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC> wrote in message
news:ue1y3OiKHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello.
>
> Is it me or are the installed disk usages significantly different (a few
> GB) between a 32-bit and a 64-bit installation? This is on the same
> machine (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe with an Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU), same
> Ultimate Edition, and similiar options in installation. I did notice an
> extra Program Files (x86) in my C:\ root directory that takes over 300 MB.
> Is this the only difference that makes the disk usage different?
>
> Thank you in advance.
> --
> Phillip Pi
> Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
> ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
> Symantec Corporation
> www.symantec.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Email: phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
> expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
> views of my employer. Thank you.

Wow, big difference.

On 12/27/2006 7:24 PM PT, Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> Yes, they are different and by about 3GB after installation.
>
> "Phillip Pi" <phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC> wrote in message
> news:ue1y3OiKHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hello.
>>
>> Is it me or are the installed disk usages significantly different (a
>> few GB) between a 32-bit and a 64-bit installation? This is on the
>> same machine (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe with an Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU),
>> same Ultimate Edition, and similiar options in installation. I did
>> notice an extra Program Files (x86) in my C:\ root directory that
>> takes over 300 MB. Is this the only difference that makes the disk
>> usage different?
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.

If 32 bit compatibility wasn't required, it would be much closer in size.
WoW (Windows on Windows) takes up a bunch of space.


Bill F.

"Phillip Pi" <phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC> wrote in message
news:%23ZPOWLjKHHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Wow, big difference.
>
> On 12/27/2006 7:24 PM PT, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> Yes, they are different and by about 3GB after installation.
>>
>> "Phillip Pi" <phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC> wrote in message
>> news:ue1y3OiKHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Is it me or are the installed disk usages significantly different (a few
>>> GB) between a 32-bit and a 64-bit installation? This is on the same
>>> machine (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe with an Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU), same
>>> Ultimate Edition, and similiar options in installation. I did notice an
>>> extra Program Files (x86) in my C:\ root directory that takes over 300
>>> MB. Is this the only difference that makes the disk usage different?
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance.
> --
> Phillip Pi
> Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
> ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
> Symantec Corporation
> www.symantec.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Email: phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
> expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
> views of my employer. Thank you.

No it doesn't. WOW64 is a very thin emulation layer that is only needed
when a 32bit program makes operating system calls, such as drivers. 32 bit
programs run natively on a 64bit cpu.

"Bill Frisbee" <wfrisbee@comcastx.net> wrote in message
news:2066A51C-0809-43CB-B3F1-0B54AD3CC17D@microsoft.com...
> If 32 bit compatibility wasn't required, it would be much closer in size.
> WoW (Windows on Windows) takes up a bunch of space.
>
>