Dear Microsoft, why, just why did you put config files for 64-bit application in System32 while putting config files for 32-bit application in SysWOW64? WHY?

It is like Microsoft is fooling everyone by making such stupid things. Regardless of which excuse they have, this is just an extremely stupid design.

It's like April fool's, but everyday of the year.

Because there's this thing called "backwards compatibility", and renaming a system folder would royally fuck it up.

I agree that it is misleading.

System32 is just the equivalent of /usr/bin. It's called the same on every windows iteration since win NT. (And it's called that way because 32 bit instruction set was not as readily compatible with 16 bit, unlike 64 bit which is mostly extended 32).

SysWOW64 actually stands for system windows 32 on windows 64, and they are actually the few 32 bit binaries that can't natively run on 64 bit ported.

Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling to know even Microsoft has the "too many chefs in the kitchen" problem too.

You *know* they had meetings and meetings and more meetings trying to come up with those folder names.

That doesn't mean they have to name the new folder, for 32 bit applications!, <something>64. I have some degree of understanding why they wanted to keep System32 for 64 bit application data, but then the new folder should be called <something>32. Or name the new folder sys32on64 or something like that.

Nobody thinks: "Yes, putting the 32 bit applications data into the folder called SysWOW64 and the 64 bit application data into the folder System32, makes totally sense."

@happygimp0 If the new folder name looked anything like "sys32", or contained the number 32, it would cause major communication issues for average users trying to fix e.g. a broken driver. It would also lead to issues with search engines returning incorrect information, especially since at the time the first 64-bit CPUs became used people already widely shortened "System32" to "sys32".

@hitko sys32on64 isn't sys32.

W32onW64 would be a other name. There are many better names than SysWOWO64, everything that doesn't contain 64 or contains 64 and 32 would be better.

It's dev, and it's a rant, and he isn't calling any of his fellow devs morons. God bless you, @happygimp0

I'm still an atheist though

Wow!

I was assuming SysWow64 meant 64-bit system-related bins until now

@asgs Was that a pun?

@Root if you have to ask ...

@asgs Knew it.

It only makes sense if you already know that "WOW64" means "Windows on Windows64"

@Hazarth Even when you know the name "WindowsOnWindows64" it doesn't make sense.