XYplorer Beta Club

Sorry Don, I've misunderstood you...

The op can't see his UltraEdit (64bit context menu) entry in the context menu of xyplorer (shows only 32bit context menu entries).

Nothing easier than that...

Of course this was done on a x64 machine (win 7 ultimate).

2 screenshots:

highend wrote:Sorry Don, I've misunderstood you...

The op can't see his UltraEdit (64bit context menu) entry in the context menu of xyplorer (shows only 32bit context menu entries).

Nothing easier than that...

Of course this was done on a x64 machine (win 7 ultimate).

Have you tested whether UltraEdit's menu item works when clicked?

And clicking on this menu item will open the 64-bit UltraEdit? That would be nice!

Have you tested whether UltraEdit's menu item works when clicked?

Do you mean the entry that fastexplorer created? Yes, I did.

And clicking on this menu item will open the 64-bit UltraEdit?

This example was just for the op. UltraEdit itself is no real 64 bit application.

Started from the start menu link the taskmanager displays only a Uedit32.exe *32 task.

Link me a real 64 bit application (that works in trial mode) and I'll give it a try.

highend wrote:

Have you tested whether UltraEdit's menu item works when clicked?

Do you mean the entry that fastexplorer created? Yes, I did.

And clicking on this menu item will open the 64-bit UltraEdit?

This example was just for the op. UltraEdit itself is no real 64 bit application.

Started from the start menu link the taskmanager displays only a Uedit32.exe *32 task.

Link me a real 64 bit application (that works in trial mode) and I'll give it a try.

This would be spectacular news, in the sense that AFAIK this shouldn't work.

You're right that UltraEdit itself is a 32-bit app, but its shell extension (which is loaded in-process by XYplorer) is 64-bit: 32-bit apps can't load 64-bit code in-process. It's apparently possible by using an intermediary shell extension; perhaps that's how Fast Explorer manages it.

Edited to add: this link, among others through Google, works.

It's apparently possible by using an intermediary shell extension

I've never said that fast explorer is used for loading the original (x86/x64bit) shell extension of any application

Google will find plenty of links where you can download it. Btw. I never tried fast explorer's 64 bit .dll file, everything I needed was working with the 32 bit one.

highend wrote:

It's apparently possible by using an intermediary shell extension

I've never said that fast explorer is used for loading the original (x86/x64bit) shell extension of any application

Sorry for the confusion: I was just listing the one workaround I know other software uses. I'm testing Fast Explorer right now.

Edited to add: I'm afraid Don and I indeed misunderstood you in the sense that Fast Explorer does not solve the 64-bit shell extension problem. It does enable shell context menu editing which, provided the target app supports adequate parameters, can emulate the functionality of shell extensions up to a point. False alarm, unfortunately .

The reason why I like fast explorer:

Instead of flooding the registry with entries for every single context menu entry that it builds, it uses it's FEShlExt.dll as a layer for it. It's nearly portable, the only thing that has to be done on a new system is the registering of the .dll file.

Edited to add: I'm afraid Don and I indeed misunderstood you in the sense that Fast Explorer does not solve the 64-bit shell extension problem. It does enable shell context menu editing which, provided the target app supports adequate parameters, can emulate the functionality of shell extensions up to a point. False alarm, unfortunately

It's only a workaround by rebuilding the original context menu. This works for most of the applications though.

nas8e9 wrote:Edited to add: I'm afraid Don and I indeed misunderstood you in the sense that Fast Explorer does not solve the 64-bit shell extension problem. It does enable shell context menu editing which, provided the target app supports adequate parameters, can emulate the functionality of shell extensions up to a point. False alarm, unfortunately .

Yep.