The requirement of two different system32 directories was solved by redirection. For compatibility reasons, the name of the system32 folder did not change in Windows 圆4, although on 64-bit platforms the folder does not contain 32-bit but 64-bit executables! That leaves the question of where to put the 32-bit files that 32-bit processes need – and also expect to find in system32? Obviously, the same DLL cannot be present twice in the same folder. Many people, including the person writing MS KB article 972034, see the number “64” in the name of the folder SysWOW64 and think: yes, that must be the 64-bit version of system32. But where is that directory located on disk? Is it the one natively called system32, or is it SysWOW64? Redirection Confusion And it is right where it belongs, in the 64-bit system32 directory. The answer is: no, the hosts file exists only once on 圆4 Windows. Now, where would the hosts file be located – or are there even two (potentially different) files?
But wait: 64-bit systems have two system32 directories: one for 64-bit processes and the other for 32-bit processes. As you probably know, the hosts file was, is and probably will always be located in %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc. Is Hosts 64-bit or 32-bit?Īs always, I am more interested in what the package does, and Microsoft is kind enough to explain that in most “Fix it for me” articles. But anyhow, there seem to be enough people asking MS support for this or they would not have troubled with creating a package (ResetHOSTSFileBackToDefaults.MSI) that basically empties the hosts file. An entry for localhost (IPv4 and IPv6) is all you need, and on Windows 7 / Server 2008 R2 not even that. The topic alone is funny enough – it is not as if the default hosts file contained great amounts of data. I just stumbled upon a KB article that describes how to reset the hosts file to its original state. The subtle differences between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows present so many intricacies and pitfalls that even Microsoft employees seem to have trouble getting it right.
0 kommentar(er)
