locked
SyncToy 2.1 - Which Version do you download? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I read and re-read the download notes several times, and I could not find where it tells you which version you download for a 64 bit or 32 bit system.

    Two questions ---

    (1) Which version do you download for a 64 bit or 32 bit system?

    (2) Where does it tell you this in the article?

    Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:55 AM

All replies

  • x86 is for a 32-bit system.
    Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:23 PM
  • Thanks.  Why don't they tell you that in the download notes?
    Monday, November 16, 2009 6:19 AM
  • SyncToySetupPackage_v21_x64.exe is for 64  bit system.

     

     

    SyncToySetupPackage_v21_x86.exe is for 32  bit system.


    Thanks,
    Ping
    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    • Proposed as answer by Ping Lu Monday, November 16, 2009 9:38 AM
    • Edited by Ping Lu Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:57 AM
    • Marked as answer by Yunwen Bai Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:31 PM
    • Unmarked as answer by Yunwen Bai Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:32 PM
    Monday, November 16, 2009 9:37 AM
  • I think you spoke in error. x86 is for 32-bit systems.
    Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:18 AM
  • I sincerely appreciate the reponses to my first question......but nobody has responded at all to my 2nd question.  I would give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and say that it was simply an oversight, but I've seen articles like this before where it was assumed that everyone reading it was as technologically knowledgeable as the person writing the article, and omitted a simple thing like that this......which version is for 32 bit and which is for 64 bit?

    I''m probably beating a dead horse, but I really would like for someone to address question no 2.

    Thanks for your help.
    Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:48 AM
  • I have an even dumber question:

    How do I determine whether my system is 32 or 64 bit?

    • Edited by sbenard Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:26 AM typo
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:24 AM
  • Cookshack,

    No-one answered because you asked a rhetorical question. As you know, it doesn't tell you in the article.

    This is free, unsupported software - by what right are you up on your high horse?

    As it's free and unsupported, if you're lacking a bit of knowledge, then a little common sense and deduction will help. If you'd intuited that the x64.exe version is indeed the 64 bit one, then you could deduce that the x86.exe version is for 32 bit systems. x86 refers to the product family of the 32 bit microprocessors used to run 32 bit windows. It's a duff convention as the 8086 and 80286 were 16 bit, while the 80386, 80486 and Pentium (80586) were 32 bit, but the point is that 32 bit windows runs on current, recent and not-so-recent x86 microprocessors.

    Alternatively, if common sense and deduction are not your strongest suits, try google. If you had googled 'x86' the first entry is a wikipedia entry discussing exactly this, and here's the second paragraph:

    'As the x86 term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies a binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit x86-16 or from the newer 64-bit x86-64 (also called x64). Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with older computers or systems, the terms x86-64 and x64 are often used to denote 64-bit software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit.'

    MS will hopefully be concentrating on developing the software at this stage, instead of idiot-proofing their documentation.

    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:41 AM
  • Go to Windows Explorer, click on the Help menu, then About Windows. That should show you the version, including 32/64 bit. That's how you get Windows version info for XP, it's probably the same for Vista/Win 7 but don't have it in front of me so cannot double check, sorry.
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:45 AM
  • On Vista I'd use, Start/Vista Button -> Computer -> Rt. Click -> Properties

    That opens a page listing the OS version etc.

    What isn't clear from the x86 and x64 download notes is which version should be used in a multi-platformed enviornment. For instance when the workstation is x64, and the server is x32.

    Should the sync version used be x64 or x32 ? I'd expect that the x64 version will work for this situation but nothing is covered in the notes.
    Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:56 PM
  • Wow!  Speaking of being on a high horse......I'd say you authored that book.   And, you let everyone know how knowledgeable you are.
    Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:06 AM
  • "As it's free and unsupported, if you're lacking a bit of knowledge, then a little common sense and deduction will help. If you'd intuited that the x64.exe version is indeed the 64 bit one, then you could deduce that the x86.exe version is for 32 bit systems. x86 refers to the product family of the 32 bit microprocessors used to run 32 bit windows. It's a duff convention as the 8086 and 80286 were 16 bit, while the 80386, 80486 and Pentium (80586) were 32 bit, but the point is that 32 bit windows runs on current, recent and not-so-recent x86 microprocessors."

    Actaully, for people who arent technologically adapt, that logic would dictate x86 would be 86-bit, which obviously does not exist.  You can not assume that people will say 64=64 so 32=86.  While it makes sense to people who know, Id make a rough estimate that some 85% of computer users dont know that.  It should say somewhere in the article as it is not straight forward. 

    And ziggy, is that medal by your name an award for being arrogant or for being a complete a-hole?
    Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:14 PM
  • zigs, I hope that at some time in your future, and in your time of need, you find yourself at the mercy of some mechanic who patronizes you for your automotive ignorance! And in this perfect world, that mechanic would perfectly mirror your own arrogance by behaving like the overstuffed, self-righteous, egomaniacle, pompass ____ that you have presented yourself as being and indulges you in the technical machinations of the stator valve in your transmission! It's kinda like shootin' fish in a barrel, isn't it? H'yuk gomer, we're not all compu-geeks! 

    i came to this site for the exact reason it was put here (as did most, i'm sure) and that was TO LEARN! And seeing that you already know it all, why would you bother expounding your drivilling knowledge to us simple folk instead of matching wits with "like-level" collegues who are more suited to intrigue your vast level of knowledge? Instead it appears that you'd rather enter the realms of martyrdom by saving the ignorant from themselves! Well, ____ on you zigs! Go play with the kids of your own stature and leave the rest of us be! 

    Why "google" the question when you can find it on a known and trusted site? THAT makes far more logical sense than "googling" and hoping something comes up!! As a mechanic, I often get questions that can be seemingly inane to have to answer, but i'd rather enrich thier knowledge base and clarify misinformations than leaving them to the mercy of the likes of you! That aside, thank you to everyone who did answer 'shack's query(ies) 'cause i didn't get it either! And for what it's worth, a little "idiot-proofing" might lead the next os to actually operate efficiently/properly/bug free straight off the assembly line! ... maybe a bit of "idiot-proofing" is exactly what's needed at IBM, et al; after all, simplicity works!!!

    Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:07 AM