Is there any utility or program that can tell whether your system is using 64bit programs?
I ask because I just installed Nitro PDR Pro 6 x64 and it installed it in the x85 Programs Directory. There's no way I can even tell if a true 64 bit program is actually being utilized in my 64 bit OS. I know I'm being anal but with all the talk of 64 bit vs 32 bit, I started getting curious. Seems that all the big box stores sell computers mostly with 64 bit Windows installed but a great majority of the programs are 32 bit (I know they don't make many).

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:04:17 -0600, "Paul " <pcostanza@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Seems that all the big box stores sell computers mostly with
> 64 bit Windows installed but a great majority of the programs
> are 32 bit (I know they don't make many).[/color]



What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
*potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
software.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Paul wrote:[color=blue]
> Is there any utility or program that can tell whether your system is
> using 64bit programs?
> I ask because I just installed Nitro PDR Pro 6 x64 and it installed it
> in the x85 Programs Directory. There's no way I can even tell if a true
> 64 bit program is actually being utilized in my 64 bit OS. I know I’m
> being anal but with all the talk of 64 bit vs 32 bit, I started getting
> curious. Seems that all the big box stores sell computers mostly with 64
> bit Windows installed but a great majority of the programs are 32 bit (I
> know they don't make many).[/color]

Open Task Manager and look at the Processes tab. 32-bit processes
are suffexed with "*32". Everything else is 64-bit.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:50:52 -0600, d3aths3rver wrote:
[color=blue]
> start/ run type in winver
>
> if not in there right click "computer" and go to properties should tell
> you there.[/color]

Did you mean to post in a different thread?

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:23:26 -0500, Carl Kaufmann wrote:
[color=blue]
> Paul wrote:[color=green]
>> Is there any utility or program that can tell whether your system is
>> using 64bit programs?
>> I ask because I just installed Nitro PDR Pro 6 x64 and it installed it
>> in the x85 Programs Directory. There's no way I can even tell if a true
>> 64 bit program is actually being utilized in my 64 bit OS. I know I¢m
>> being anal but with all the talk of 64 bit vs 32 bit, I started getting
>> curious. Seems that all the big box stores sell computers mostly with 64
>> bit Windows installed but a great majority of the programs are 32 bit (I
>> know they don't make many).[/color]
>
> Open Task Manager and look at the Processes tab. 32-bit processes
> are suffexed with "*32". Everything else is 64-bit.[/color]

Hah! What a deal! I never noticed this...

Thanks.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
*potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
software.

Stan Starinski wrote this, and it somehow bypassed my kill-file:
[color=blue]
> What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
> yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
> *potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
> instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
> software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
> we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
> expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
> software.[/color]

Why did you not quote Ken Blake on that?
He said that in the same thread, you friggen moron.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:07:27 -0500, Death <death@rottingcorpses.x-x>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Stan Starinski wrote this, and it somehow bypassed my kill-file:
>[color=green]
> > What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
> > yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
> > *potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
> > instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
> > software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
> > we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
> > expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
> > software.[/color]
>
> Why did you not quote Ken Blake on that?
> He said that in the same thread, you friggen moron.[/color]


He not only said the same thing I did, he repeated it word for word.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:07:27 -0500, Death <death@rottingcorpses.x-x>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Stan Starinski wrote this, and it somehow bypassed my kill-file:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
>> > yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
>> > *potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
>> > instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
>> > software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
>> > we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
>> > expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
>> > software.[/color]
>>
>> Why did you not quote Ken Blake on that?
>> He said that in the same thread, you friggen moron.[/color]
>
>
> He not only said the same thing I did, he repeated it word for word.
>[/color]

You can bet if spelling errors are less than 30% in his posting, it's
plagiarized.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

On 22 Nov 2009 17:04:00 +0100, Death <death@rottigcorpses.x-x> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>[color=green]
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:07:27 -0500, Death <death@rottingcorpses.x-x>
> > wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Stan Starinski wrote this, and it somehow bypassed my kill-file:
> >>
> >> > What you say is largely correct. There are very few 64-bit programs
> >> > yet. That means that the advantage of 64-bit Windows is mostly
> >> > *potential* right now. I think it's good to be running 64-bit Windows
> >> > instead of 32-bit Windows, because it lets you buy and install 64-bit
> >> > software as it becomes available in the future (and almost certainly,
> >> > we will all start seeing more and more of this very soon). But don't
> >> > expect much of a performance increase until you start running 64-bit
> >> > software.
> >>
> >> Why did you not quote Ken Blake on that?
> >> He said that in the same thread, you friggen moron.[/color]
> >
> >
> > He not only said the same thing I did, he repeated it word for word.
> >[/color]
>
> You can bet if spelling errors are less than 30% in his posting, it's
> plagiarized.[/color]


LOL! But I should mention that I'm very prone to making typos myself.
[color=blue]
>
> --
> Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
> Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
>[/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup