Windows 10 Download 32-bit
Abele Beardsley
Why can't a 64-bit program run on a 32-bit copy of Windows? How does my PC know that I'm running a 64-bit program? Does the program have a piece of code telling Windows that it's a 64-bit program or does Windows simply fail to execute it?
For another, the actual machine-code instructions inside the program are different. (That's kind of the whole point of having different architectures, by the way.) The 64-bit x86_64 architecture has more instructions than 32-bit x86 had, and 32-bit x86 had more instructions than 16-bit. (And things like Alpha or ARM or Itanium are so different that there's very little that could even be compared.)
Why can't a 64-bit program run on a 32-bit copy of Windows?
A 32-bit program stores the various locations where it has stored its data in 32-bits. And since it is possible to store 32-bits in 64-bits of storage, Windows will happily run the program while filling the other 32-bits of the 64-bit appropriately.
A 64-bit program on the otherhand uses 64-bits to indicate the locations. Since it is not possible to store 64-bits in a 32-bit storage without throwing away half of it, Windows will refuse to run a 64-bit program on a 32-bit computer.
Does the program have a piece of code telling Windows that it's a 64-bit program or does Windows simply fail to execute it?
Every program has a header, that tells Windows, every thing it needs to know about how to run the program including if it is a 32-bit application or a 64-bit application.
I saw a significant difference in file size of the two versions of the same program, so I think it's the code that's different. Is it possible to modify the code and make the program run?
64-bits occupy twice the amount of memory as 32-bits. That is why 64-bit programs are larger than their 32-bit counterparts.
These memory locations only make up a fraction of a program; the majority of it being instructions (which remain the same size) and stuff like text and icons. Since only the memory locations double in size, the 64-bit version of a program is only slightly larger than being double the size.
Because 2^64 is a much larger number, it's obvious that 64bits programs can access a much wider range of values; they can see/use a lot more memory. Large enough that you likely don't know the SI prefix: 16 exbibytes. What's an exbibytes? Large enough that nobody will really care for the foreseeable future.
If you're talking about an installer, you really should not hard-code the path to the system folder. Instead, let Windows take care of it for you based on whether or not your installer is running on the emulation layer.
You do not ever install your dlls, or third party dlls into \system32\ or \syswow64. If you have to statically load, you put your dlls in your exe dir (where they will be found). If you cannot predict the exe dir (e.g. some other exe is going to call your dll), you may have to put your dll dir into the search path (avoid this if at all poss!)
system32 and syswow64 are for Windows provided files... not for anyone elses files. The only reason folks got into the bad habit of putting stuff there is because it is always in the search path, and many apps/modules use static linking. (So, if you really get down to it, the real sin is static linking -- this is a sin in native code and managed code -- always always always dynamically link!)
I was taught to use Windows 3.1 and DOS, remember those days? Shortly after I worked with Macintosh computers strictly for some time, then began to sway back to Windows after buying a x64-bit machine.
System32 is where Windows historically placed all 32bit DLLs, and System was for the 16bit DLLs. When microsoft created the 64 bit OS, everyone I know of expected the files to reside under System64, but Microsoft decided it made more sense to put 64bit files under System32. The only reasoning I have been able to find, is that they wanted everything that was 32bit to work in a 64bit Windows w/o having to change anything in the programs -- just recompile, and it's done. The way they solved this, so that 32bit applications could still run, was to create a 32bit windows subsystem called Windows32 On Windows64. As such, the acronym SysWOW64 was created for the System directory of the 32bit subsystem. The Sys is short for System, and WOW64 is short for Windows32OnWindows64.
Since windows 16 is already segregated from Windows 32, there was no need for a Windows 16 On Windows 64 equivalence. Within the 32bit subsystem, when a program goes to use files from the system32 directory, they actually get the files from the SysWOW64 directory. But the process is flawed.
It's a horrible design. And in my experience, I had to do a lot more changes for writing 64bit applications, that simply changing the System32 directory to read System64 would have been a very small change, and one that pre-compiler directives are intended to handle.
Other folks have already done a good job of explaining this ridiculus conundrum ... and I think Chris Hoffman did an even better job here: -the-difference-between-the-system32-and-syswow64-folders-in-windows/
We all make stupid short-sighted mistakes in life. When Microsoft named their (at the time) Win32 DLL directory "System32", it made sense at the time ... they just didn't take into consideration what would happen if/when a 64-bit (or 128-bit) version of their OS got developed later - and the massive backward compatibility issue such a directory name would cause. Hindsight is always 20-20, so I can't really blame them (too much) for such a mistake. ...HOWEVER... When Microsoft did later develop their 64-bit operating system, even with the benefit of hindsight, why oh why would they make not only the exact same short-sighted mistake AGAIN but make it even worse by PURPOSEFULLY giving it such a misleading name?!? Shame on them!!! Why not AT LEAST actually name the directory "SysWin32OnWin64" to avoid confusion?!? And what happens when they eventually produce a 128-bit OS ... then where are they going to put their 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit DLLs?!?
All of this logic still seems completely flawed to me. On 32-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 32-bit DLLs; on 64-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 64-bit DLLs ... so that developers wouldn't have to make code changes, correct? The problem with this logic is that those developers are either now making 64-bit apps needing 64-bit DLLs or they're making 32-bit apps needing 32-bit DLLs ... either way, aren't they still screwed? I mean, if they're still making a 32-bit app, for it to now run on a 64-bit Windows, they'll now need to make a code change to find/reference the same ol' 32-bit DLL they used before (now located in SysWOW64). Or, if they're working on a 64-bit app, they're going to need to re-write their old app for the new OS anyway ... so a recompile/rebuild was going to be needed anyway!!!
I gave my son my laptop which left me with my old win7 32 bit toshiba. where do i download the 32 bit cura?my computer says its incompatible with the 64amd. any possible way someone can leave the link. im a bit overwhelmed atm so my mind is a bit jumbled
Ultimaker Cura stopped being supported with Windows 32bit a while ago. You can find previous versions at this link. I want to say I think the last one that supported 32bit windows was in the 2.x series so you'll have to scroll back a ways. I'm not using Windows and am not 100% sure of which version was the final 32bit Cura. Cura 4.8 won't run on 32bit.
Thank you guys for the help, I did end up installing win 10 pro 64bit on that laptop, it has a 64bit system. But as Torgier mentioned it uses a lot of its "resources" so I uninstalled it due to failure at startup. I bought a better laptop and upgraded the crap out of it and today is the day I see what Ive created and test it with cura
I want to build both 32- and 64-bit binaries of an application on Windows 7-64. I have installed the stable-i686 and stable-x86_64 toolchains and have built the application as 64-bit with no problems. But the 32-bit one ends up with some 64-bit code and won't run.
The depends program reports a problem with the 32-bit exe: "Error: Modules with different CPU types were found." Which sounds to me like I have some 64-bit artifacts even though I build the 32- and 64-bit versions in different target dirs.
I'm not aware that I have any C dependencies: the app is pure rust + some access to DLLs (for which I have a cfg to choose 32- or 64 bits). But I use lots of crates so maybe one of those is 64 bit only. I'll try again with a small example app.
So for the larger app I'm working on I think you're right that I have a crate dependency that's 64-bit only. But even if I found out which one (or ones) it is, knowing that won't give me a 32-bit build.
Knowing which dependency it is could help you file a bug and get it fixed. Sys crates usually also have a way to force them to build a static library from source instead of searching the system for it.
Unfortunately, I've now removed all the 32-bit support. It was only a "nice to have" for me and had the disadvantage of doubling the number of packages and tests. I know that people use virtual machines, but I don't really know why people still use 32 bits (although I do have two ancient laptops that are 32 bits, so maybe other people hang on to old machines too).
In Windows 10, the same procedure seems to launch 64-bit, despite the shortcut property to x86. The Task Manager does not indicate any difference between the launched 64-bit and 32-bit instances. Both list iexplore.exe (nothing indicating 32 bit).
Also, there is no iexplore.exe *32 in Windows 10 process manager, even if launching the x86 executable. So i'm still stuck. I've read the same issues elsewhere but no substantive answers specifically for Windows 10, IE 11.
I'm asking somebody who works with the apps with Win 7 64 bit, IE 11 32-bit to provide a screenshot of her Task Manager. Maybe I can see if IE 11 is running in this little of 64, a lot of 32 manner "successfully" for her.
59fb9ae87f