Vista 64bit - Adminstrative Tools MMC using 64bit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter null
  • Start date Start date
N

null

Guest
I was poking around and noticed the following:
Administrative Tools > Services (%SystemRoot%\system32\services.msc)

However the following exists as well: (%SystemRoot%\SysWOW64\services.msc)

So, is Vista 64 by default using the 32bit versions, or are the 64bit
version in system32 as well?

Note: When I run both neither have the "*32" which I'm assuming is a flag
for 32bit support.

Needless to say I'm a little confused.
 
Re: Vista 64bit - Adminstrative Tools MMC using 64bit?

Did you install any 64-bit third-party programs that can
take advantage of a sophisticated 64-bit operating system?

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows System & Performance

---------------------------------------------------------------

"null" wrote:

I was poking around and noticed the following:
Administrative Tools > Services (%SystemRoot%\system32\services.msc)

However the following exists as well: (%SystemRoot%\SysWOW64\services.msc)

So, is Vista 64 by default using the 32bit versions, or are the 64bit
version in system32 as well?

Note: When I run both neither have the "*32" which I'm assuming is a flag
for 32bit support.

Needless to say I'm a little confused.
 
Re: Vista 64bit - Adminstrative Tools MMC using 64bit?

System32 has the 64bit version. And it is what is used. Even if you run the
one in SysWOW64, you actually end up with the 64-bit one.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"null" <null@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B6C31153-7739-4F48-89BE-6D9A0A73EA20@microsoft.com...
>I was poking around and noticed the following:
> Administrative Tools > Services (%SystemRoot%\system32\services.msc)
>
> However the following exists as well: (%SystemRoot%\SysWOW64\services.msc)
>
> So, is Vista 64 by default using the 32bit versions, or are the 64bit
> version in system32 as well?
>
> Note: When I run both neither have the "*32" which I'm assuming is a flag
> for 32bit support.
>
> Needless to say I'm a little confused.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Back
Top