Is it okay to circumvent using the Program Files/Program Files(x86) folders?

D

DaRuSsIaMaN

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
1,216
I just got a new laptop with Win7. I've used Vista a little bit at work, but otherwise I am a WinXP user and know little about the newer Windows. To get to the chase, my question is, is it possible to create my own alternative pair of 64bit/x86 folders and use them as the destinations for all the new software I will be installing? In other words, they will simply be two new folders with different names (and they will start empty). I'm sure it's possible but would there any downside to doing this?

What would be really cool is if I could get Win7 to treat these potential new folders the same as it does with the default ones, where 64bit programs default to one of them, while 32 bit programs default to the other. Is this possible?

If you're wondering why I am interested in doing this, it would be purely for organizational purposes.
 
Don't do this. The default Program Files directories are heavily ACLed to prevent user-mode programs from tampering with program files. If you change to another set of directories, you won't have the same restrictions and will be exposing yourself to security vulnerabilities.
 
Also, another reason to use the default directories, is in computers, it's better not to 'rock the boat' - and change things willy nilly, some programs respond badly, for instance the program might install and run from another location, but some sub-function or whatever might be hard-coded to look for program data/code in the program files folder and will bomb if it doesn't find it.
 
You're saying you want to do this for organizational purposes yet Windows is already doing that, hence the Program Files (x86) folder for 32 bit apps and Program Files for 64 bit apps (on a 64 bit OS, that is). Of course, some installers are "stuck in the past" and toss everything in the x86 folder even so because the people writing them haven't bothered to update the installers or simply don't care to do it the right way.

As noted, this is because of how Windows 7 works (and Vista, much to the same degree) and the security issues presented with doing things in a way that goes against the basic functionality of the OS itself.

There's nothing stopping you from installing apps to other folders, however; most apps - at least well written ones with a decent installer - will always offer the option to choose where to install them at some point during the process.

Of course that's the manual method but, if one has a choice between doing things the way Windows is designed to do them or potentially wrecking things by altering that (the antithesis of the "leave it alone" argument), the best suggestion is just that: leave it alone and get used to doing things differently now.

One of the toughest things for new Windows 7 users to adapt to (and Vista as well) is realizing that things are done differently now, with positive benefits to the end user. XP's greatest handicap, if it had one, was being on the market for so long - Microsoft had a regular pattern of releasing a new version of Windows roughly every 18-24 months but, XP stayed out there for 6+ years, and it's still out there so, people are really having a tough time changing and learning new ways of getting stuff done.
 
There are a few older games that are particularly troubled by UAC, such as Freelancer, that are best custom installed to C: in Vista/Win7, but other than that, what Bahamut said.
 
Arainach said:
Don't do this. The default Program Files directories are heavily ACLed to prevent user-mode programs from tampering with program files. If you change to another set of directories, you won't have the same restrictions and will be exposing yourself to security vulnerabilities.
Click to expand...

1. Ok so what about if I create sub-folders within the existing directories? If I make a new folder, say, "Programs(x86)" within the already existing "Program Files (x86)", and start installing 32-bit programs in there? Will that then preserve the security structure/restrictions?

2. Secondly, will doing what I described in #1 allow programs proper access to, and use of, the respective Common Files folder? Due to this duality of Program Files, we now also have a duality of Common Files, so that's a bit of a snag... hmm.
 
Going by point 1, what could possibly be a reason for adding a subfolder of the same name? I can't wrap my brain around why it is such a big deal to use the folders as intended. If you claim to be concerned about organization, why would you over-complicate a very simple, well-laid-out set of folders already?

In all honestly, you're spending time thinking about ways to muck up a working system. Just use things as intended, and enjoy using the best version of Windows to ever be released.
 
Indeed, due to the way the 32bit emulation works these folders are there for a reason. Same with system32 and syswow64. Just don't mess with it.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Going by point 1, what could possibly be a reason for adding a subfolder of the same name? I can't wrap my brain around why it is such a big deal to use the folders as intended. If you claim to be concerned about organization, why would you over-complicate a very simple, well-laid-out set of folders already?

In all honestly, you're spending time thinking about ways to muck up a working system. Just use things as intended, and enjoy using the best version of Windows to ever be released.
Click to expand...

Haha... Why do you (or anyone else) care about why I'm interested in this? Don't worry about why lol. People keep trying to lecture me on how I should behave, but why? :p I'm trying to say this politely. Sometimes it's hard to convey the right attitude through writing, but don't take me wrong: I'm not irritated or anything, I'm just saying.

I'm just asking about what will work or not. And if it won't work, then I'd like to know exactly why (as opposed to general advice like "just leave it alone"). Because I'm curious about it. Can we just stick to that? :D
 
I can explain why. Because many of us read several forums, and find them full of people doing odd, unusual, useless, wasteful things to their systems simple because they can. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I could take my 325xi, put some big ass stickers on it, a neon light underneath, and a huge wing on the back. Benefits? None. Negatives? It's ugly, and would actually slow my car down from any extra weight. But but but...I could do it.

You may be laughing, but so are we, at why anyone finds issue or a need to change what works out so well. Have you ever heard of the garbage in garbage out concept? If you ask a wild question, like making subfolders of the same name within, you'll get wild ridiculous answers back.
 
But you have the technical answers above. I just added the common sense answers to it. What more would you want? Do people really have this much free time to ponder these things, instead of just setting up a system and using it to do what it is they need to do with the system...like earn a living in my case.
 
Another vote for leave it alone. You aren't doing anything to increase efficiency. Microsoft has plenty of articles about the way Windows 7/Vista handles compatibility between 32 and 64bit apps (Virtualized folders and registry) and the security infrastructure (UAC).

DeaconFrost, I got fed up with friends trying to reorganize the OS, trim features, etc. It got to a point where I just said, hey, if it bothers you so much and you want to keep arguing with me about it, just go ahead and make your changes. You fix it if it decides to take a sh*t on you due to your changes. I mean, you tell them the hows and whys and they insist on doing it "their way". Okay, have at it. Not to say the OP is that stubborn--right now, he/she is just asking.
 
Too many times, people are asking the wrong questions. If someone says "I'm trying to lose weight, does lard or Crisco have less calories", do you answer "Crisco", or do you say "What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish, since you shouldn't be doing either of these if you're trying to lose weight"? THAT is why asking why you're doing this matters.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Haha... Why do you (or anyone else) care about why I'm interested in this?
Click to expand...
I don't actually care why you do this, for all I care you can nest it 32 folders deep and see whether that works.

However, usually people care because understanding the reason is paramount to suggesting a working (or more elegant) solution. It's often the case that the poster hasn't considered something or other and arrived at the conclusion that they need to do X. However, if the crowd knows the original intent then it can decide whether the reasoning that let the OP arrive at X was flawed and suggest Y instead.

As for me personally, I saw "circumvent" in the topic, your reluctance to disclose why you need to do it, and figure that there's some malicious reason for it.
 
tesfaye said:
DeaconFrost, I got fed up with friends trying to reorganize the OS, trim features, etc. It got to a point where I just said, hey, if it bothers you so much and you want to keep arguing with me about it, just go ahead and make your changes. You fix it if it decides to take a sh*t on you due to your changes. I mean, you tell them the hows and whys and they insist on doing it "their way". Okay, have at it.
Click to expand...
Funny....you must be friends with my father-in-law!!!!
 
Oh, okay ... I must admit, good points, Arainach and Thuleman. Let me explain better. Alright there is nothing malicious or even anything special about why I was interested in this. I just have some odd whims/preferences when it comes to organizing things. In this case, I like the idea of starting with an empty folder after a fresh OS install. Or, with this 32/64bit duality, it would have to be 2 empty folders, whatever. But the point is that I like the idea of keeping separate all of the pre-installed windows components (plus whatever stuff my laptop manufacturer also put in there) from whatever software I myself plan on installing. I did this scheme on my current WinXP Pro install on my PC. I made a "Programs" folder on C: and have since installed everything in there, with the exception of several softwares which insisted on going into "Program Files" by not allowing me to change path during installation. For whatever reason (you may think I'm weird) this feels nicer, cleaner, and more organized to me because I feel like I can keep track of things better.

A final note (less important these days), in the bad old days when I was a less experienced user and did run afoul of nasty internet things like malware... sometimes these nasties would actually place stuff right into the Program Files folder. By keeping the contents of Program Files virtually unchanged (since new apps are being put elsewhere), it would be easy to detect any such malicious changes immediately, whereas otherwise I would not notice it amongst all the clutter.

So, to recap, I just like the idea of having a fresh, empty folder (or folders) to start with to place all my software into.

It's really not that giant of a deal. I'm curious if I can get something like that to work. If not, I'd like to know why not (which would allow me learn more about how Windows works), but I'm not going to persist in this if there are concrete problems that will arise.
 
If you change the path in an installer and tell something to go to another path, then yeah, you can install it wherever you want, and it should work.

The thing is, there are reasons things are the way they are. ALSO those program files folders are a bit special, a 32-bit app 'sees' the computer differently than a 64-bit app, as 32-bit apps have their own program files folder, registry and system32 folder. The windows\syswow64 directory is the 32-bit system32, and when a 32-bit app is running it sees the syswow64 folder as the system32 folder and the 64-bit system32 is hidden. The same goes for the registry and program files folders.

As you can see this is more of a complex system than in the past. You should really just let things be :)
 
Okay, you need to read up on how Windows 7 works. Meaning, do some research on Windows 7 special folders, file system and registry virtualization. Also, familiarize yourself with UAC. Then you can make a more informed decision about this "organization" that you plan on doing.

Here's the thing, you can't guarantee that everything will be organized even when you specify an alternate installation path for a given application. You can still end up with files in Common Files, System32, and or ProgramData, plus you get some stuff in your user profile (AppData) folders. You just can't be sure, so when you think you have isolated and moved something into ONE location, you really havent, just a part of it. So you really haven't gained anything.

We're all just trying to save you some frustration down the line.
 
The only time that I ever have a seperate folder for installing something is for games, e.g., G:\Games. Everything else goes in either of the system architecture specific Program Files folders.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
The only time that I ever have a seperate folder for installing something is for games, e.g., G:\Games. Everything else goes in either of the system architecture specific Program Files folders.
Click to expand...

Oh, the boatload of poorly coded games that crashed hard when installed in Program Files (x86)... Ex: League of Legends updates would get thrown in AppData instead of Program Files if you didn't install to C:\RiotGames on a Win7 machine. All support or devs could say was essentially "suck it up and do it our way" because their patcher was inherently flawed.
 
tesfaye said:
Here's the thing, you can't guarantee that everything will be organized even when you specify an alternate installation path for a given application. You can still end up with files in Common Files, System32, and or ProgramData, plus you get some stuff in your user profile (AppData) folders. You just can't be sure, so when you think you have isolated and moved something into ONE location, you really havent, just a part of it.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I do realize that. That's the same as how it worked for XP. Things ended up in Common Files as well as in the hidden folder "Application Data" nested within the Documents and Settings\<Account Name> directory. But that's fine by me.

tesfaye said:
Okay, you need to read up on how Windows 7 works. Meaning, do some research on Windows 7 special folders, file system and registry virtualization. Also, familiarize yourself with UAC.
Click to expand...

Great, I do want to learn about those things. I'll look into that. Any good links you know of, other than the obvious wikipedia? I want to avoid getting into too much depth, though.
 
It's a pretty interesting question, IMO. There was a registry setting for it in WinXP, but I'm not aware of anything like that for Win 7.
 
The basic reason for the questions of "Why do this?" and "Why would anybody muck around with this since Windows handles it already?" fall under the "Ok, if we show this person how to do this, and they do it and muck things up pretty bad (the majority of the time this is the case), then they'll come back hoping for even more support or, heaven forbid, assistance for fixing the issues that they just caused by breaking how Windows works natively and pointing a finger at me/us/whoever..."

Hence, the "leave it alone" philosophy.

If you want that much control over your OS, use some Linux distro, seriously. Windows is designed to work a certain way and whenever people muck around and fuck that up, it's a problem whether that person cares to see it in that light or not.
 
Ok, I have a small OS fast HDD and use it for OS and main apps...

I have a second large HDD, I install non essential apps to M:\Program Files(x86)\... or M:\Programs Files\... .

Why? Because I cant fit all my programs under C:\

Been doing this since Windows 7 was released. No issues yet.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Haha... Why do you (or anyone else) care about why I'm interested in this? Don't worry about why lol. People keep trying to lecture me on how I should behave, but why? :p I'm trying to say this politely. Sometimes it's hard to convey the right attitude through writing, but don't take me wrong: I'm not irritated or anything, I'm just saying.

I'm just asking about what will work or not. And if it won't work, then I'd like to know exactly why (as opposed to general advice like "just leave it alone"). Because I'm curious about it. Can we just stick to that? :D
Click to expand...


Why?

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/03/23/558887.aspx
" A common obstacle when trying to help people solve their problems is that what people ask for and what they actually want are not always the same thing. "

Also:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rflaming/archive/2005/10/01/476154.aspx
 
Last edited:
SpeedyVV said:
Ok, I have a small OS fast HDD and use it for OS and main apps...

I have a second large HDD, I install non essential apps to M:\Program Files(x86)\... or M:\Programs Files\... .

Why? Because I cant fit all my programs under C:\

Been doing this since Windows 7 was released. No issues yet.
Click to expand...

Very cool. Sounds promising; thanks for sharing.
 
SpeedyVV said:
Ok, I have a small OS fast HDD and use it for OS and main apps...
Click to expand...
That's usually do to a small SSD or poor planning when formatting existing drives. You can move the progam files properly, so the permissions, variables, etc all are correct. That isn't an issue very often (still can be), but that's also besides the point here.
 
if it is a game it goes into the c:\games folder

everything else goes where windows suggests it goes (ie program files or program files(x86) )
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
if it is a game it goes into the c:\games folder

everything else goes where windows suggests it goes (ie program files or program files(x86) )
Click to expand...

By default, most games choose the Program Files (x86) folder. I've never seen any current major games needing to install to C:\Games. The last game that did this was System Shock 2 as far as my experience goes. I'm sure there are other classsics that did it, too.
 
DeaconFrost said:
That's usually do to a small SSD or poor planning when formatting existing drives. You can move the progam files properly, so the permissions, variables, etc all are correct. That isn't an issue very often (still can be), but that's also besides the point here.
Click to expand...

Now, if only you could make soft links in Windows like you can in Unix. :p
 
Last edited:
^I just put them there so I can keep them all in one spot as I do run DOX Box
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top