Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Feb 2018 21:37 UTC
Windows

This week, however, Microsoft finally published a more complete list of the limitations of Windows 10 on ARM. And that word - limitations - is interesting. This isn't how Windows 10 on ARM differs from Windows 10 on x86-based systems. It's how it's more limited.

None of these things really sound all that surprising to me, but you can bet these limitations - which seem technical in nature, not political - will lead to outcries among some people who buy ARM-based Windows 10 machines.

Thread beginning with comment 654084
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Just need to ask....
by malxau on Fri 23rd Feb 2018 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Just need to ask...."
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

This may not be the most accurate way to find out, but my "program files x86" directory contains 129 items versus only 70 for "program files". A better way would be to scan the binaries. I believe I reinstalled my computer from scratch in 2016. This would make for an interesting census ;)


You inspired me.

1. Get sdir (http://www.malsmith.net/sdir)
2. Cd /d "C:\Program Files"
3. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=amd64 *.exe
4. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=i386 *.exe
5. Cd /d "C:\Program Files (x86)"
6. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=amd64 *.exe
7. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=i386 *.exe

Those sdir lines translate to "recurse, no pause, display CPU architecture, and exclude those matching the specified architecture." The result on my machine was a total mess:

\Program Files:
- 184 i386
- 119 amd64

\Program Files (x86):
- 660 i386
- 239 amd64

So I think the conclusion is that the split between these directories has been...ineffective...at categorizing where installers put binaries. Oh, and 29% of the executables in the two are amd64 on my box.

(To think when the first amd64 XP build was released, I got my hands on one and ported all my code to it in April 2005, only to realize there was no point. Talk about jumping the gun.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Just need to ask....
by Alfman on Fri 23rd Feb 2018 17:40 in reply to "RE[9]: Just need to ask...."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

malxau,

You inspired me.

1. Get sdir (http://www.malsmith.net/sdir)
2. Cd /d "C:\Program Files"
3. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=amd64 *.exe
4. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=i386 *.exe
5. Cd /d "C:\Program Files (x86)"
6. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=amd64 *.exe
7. Sdir -r -pn -dar -fear=i386 *.exe

Those sdir lines translate to "recurse, no pause, display CPU architecture, and exclude those matching the specified architecture."


Wow you certainly went above and beyond here, nice!

The result on my machine was a total mess:

\Program Files:
- 184 i386
- 119 amd64

\Program Files (x86):
- 660 i386
- 239 amd64


Yikes.

I've found microsoft's approach to segregating programs files and virtually remapping the directory structure to hide the underlying structure to be clumsy. Too much overengineering for no good reason, and now you've shown it wasn't even effective!


So I think the conclusion is that the split between these directories has been...ineffective...at categorizing where installers put binaries. Oh, and 29% of the executables in the two are amd64 on my box.


Indeed, and yet it's funny how close we were percentage-wise: your 29% to my 35%, haha.

Reply Parent Score: 2