On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > True, but x86_64 had so much potential, and Itanium was doomed from the start. http://www.emulators.com/docs/nx05_vx64.htm -- This guy has it right. - Steven -- 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
