Hi, On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Steven Noonan wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Lee wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Stephen Haberman > >> <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > It kind of works on my Vista 64-bit system--I do not see the shell > >> > extensions in the native Windows Explorer (which is 64 bit), but I > >> > do see the shell extensions in an Explorer replacement I use > >> > (Xplorer2) that is 32-bit. > >> > > >> > I've seen other oddities in 32-bit vs. 64-bit programs--e.g. my alt > >> > tab replacement (Joe), which is 32-bit, works great with 32-bit > >> > programs but cannot remove focus from 64-bit programs (IE, Windows > >> > Explorer, etc.). Ironically, very few of the programs I use are > >> > 64-bit, so I get by with the alt tab replacement. > >> > >> Thanks! It seems that 64-bit explorer.exe will not load 32-bit shell > >> extensions. At least now I know I'm not going crazy. :) > > > > How could it? You cannot have 32-bit code and 64-bit code running in the > > same process. At least not with x86_64 (AFAIK). > > Correct, this is also my biggest gripe with how x86_64 is implemented. > Thank you, AMD! Come on, at least it is not Itanium. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
