Can't access hosts file or System32\drivers\etc on Vista x64

[lukescammell]

Hi Don,

Just found an irritating little bug...

If you put this in the AB of WE:

Code: Select all

%systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\

you get to

Code: Select all

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

Put either in XY and it says "Couldn't find location".

Vista SP2 x64
XY 8.80.0036

[admin]

WOW64...

[lukescammell]

Yes, I know WOW64 is a PITA, but this is still a bug If WE can do it XY *really* should be able to, and it's not like this is something that your power users aren't going to be trying to access

[admin]

Yes, I know WOW64 is a PITA, but this is still a bug If WE can do it XY *really* should be able to, and it's not like this is something that your power users aren't going to be trying to access

XY64 will be able to do it. But XY32 cannot do it because its (WOW redirected) %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\ simply does not exist.

[lukescammell]

Okay thanks for explaining Don. That's a real bugger

[admin]

FYI: The-long-wait-for-64-bit-PC-software-continues
http://windowssecrets.com/2010/01/28/01 ... -continues

[zer0]

FYI: The-long-wait-for-64-bit-PC-software-continues
http://windowssecrets.com/2010/01/28/01 ... -continues

I don't really want to open this can of worms, but I must say this: Michael Lasky is incorrect in many ways in his article. He says that there are no 64-bit versions of major applications and then goes on to speak of...drumroll...64-bit versions of major applications. He also seems oblivious to the fact that Office 2010 has a 64-bit version. Also, Exchange 2010 is 64-bit only. Granted, most major software is in alpha/beta and not on all platforms, but it hardly seems fair for him to relegate them to non-existence -- that's the impression I'm getting. That's it, can closed, no more worms

[lukescammell]

FYI: The-long-wait-for-64-bit-PC-software-continues
http://windowssecrets.com/2010/01/28/01 ... -continues

I don't really want to open this can of worms, but I must say this: Michael Lasky is incorrect in many ways in his article...

Yeah, no kidding!

To this day, however, 64-bit versions of such major applications as <snip!> Adobe Photoshop <snip!> have been vaporware.

Dear GOD! How can something this poorly researched be published? I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been using 64bit Adobe Photoshop for over a year. Since CS4 Photoshop has been 64bit for PC. That's just truly shocking...

Photoshop users are left wondering why it has taken Adobe so long to release a 64-bit version of the popular image-editing app.

However, to take advantage of 64-bit processing, users need to allocate more than 4GB RAM solely to Photoshop, <snip!> That means you would need much more system memory than most PCs ship with today.

Oh please! 4x2GB RAM is ~£160, which is hardly breaking the bank if you're going to be using the computer in a work scenario.

While we await release of the 64-bit version of Photoshop...

Only Mac users...

Anyway, I don't think that XY itself actually *needs* to be 64bit, other than for the shell extensions capability and the ability to actually be taken seriously as a filemanager to administer a 64bit version of Windows. I doubt there would be any other tangible benefits to it going 64bit, but those are two pretty important ones in my book.

I realise the reason we don't have a 64bit version yet is that there isn't a 64bit capable VB compiler, but I do wonder what you plan on doing, Don, should there *never* be a 64bit VB compiler? I personally have to use a 64bit copy of Windows in order to support >4GB memory (try running multiple Adobe CS apps and a couple of VMs and see how piddly <4GB RAM feels) so this is something that I would be interested to hear the answer to.

[admin]

I realise the reason we don't have a 64bit version yet is that there isn't a 64bit capable VB compiler, but I do wonder what you plan on doing, Don, should there *never* be a 64bit VB compiler?

Write one myself. Of course, there's always the option to migrate to another language. Not nice, but many have gone this way since VB was abandoned by MS, so it's an option.

[graham]

admin wrote:

Of course, there's always the option to migrate to another language. Not nice, but many have gone this way since VB was abandoned by MS, so it's an option.

Dare I comment, a sensible option - not easy but future proof and will provide more opportunities I guess programming. Now is the time to take this gigantic step as it can be 'shared' in line with the existing VB XY and as that is proved as a specification it is mainly the language barrier. That said, most languages, even high level ones, fall back to the root code.

[lukescammell]

Just thinking out loud for a moment, if you were to rewrite in .NET you *could* even make XY a cross platform file brwser since you can run .NET apps using Mono on both Linux and OSX. Sorry, just a small dream of mine to have XY available on OSX and Linux, would certainly make admining them a *LOT* better - sorry, but Finder and Nautilus suck compared to XY...

[admin]

Just thinking out loud for a moment, if you were to rewrite in .NET you *could* even make XY a cross platform file brwser since you can run .NET apps using Mono on both Linux and OSX. Sorry, just a small dream of mine to have XY available on OSX and Linux, would certainly make admining them a *LOT* better - sorry, but Finder and Nautilus suck compared to XY...

.NET = Never

Linux. AFAIK XY runs under Ubuntu.

[lukescammell]

.NET = Never

Ah well, there go my cross platform dreams =D

Linux. AFAIK XY runs under Ubuntu.

I assume you mean using Wine?

[admin]

Linux. AFAIK XY runs under Ubuntu.

I assume you mean using Wine?

Ah yes.

[paul0]

I have a similar problem in Windows 7 64bit.

Xyplorer cannot locate the directory of C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc, but can see the directory of C:\Windows\System32\drivers.

Problem of this bugs: I cannot touch any files under C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc, such as hosts.

Explorer has no such issue.