Why do 64-bit DLLs go to System32 and 32-bit DLLs to SysWoW64 on 64-bit Windows?

Question

I believe the intent was to rename System32, but so many applications hard-coded for that path, that it wasn't feasible to remove it.

SysWoW64 wasn't intended for the dlls of 64-bit systems, it's actually something like "Windows on Windows64", meaning the bits you need to run 32bit apps on a 64bit windows.

This article explains a bit:

"Windows x64 has a directory System32 that contains 64-bit DLLs (sic!). Thus native processes with a bitness of 64 find “their” DLLs where they expect them: in the System32 folder. A second directory, SysWOW64, contains the 32-bit DLLs. The file system redirector does the magic of hiding the real System32 directory for 32-bit processes and showing SysWOW64 under the name of System32."

Edit: If you're talking about an installer, you really should not hard-code the path to the system folder. Instead, let Windows take care of it for you based on whether or not your installer is running on the emulation layer.

I should add: You should not be putting your dll's into \system32\ anyway! Modify your code, modify your installer... find a home for your bits that is NOT anywhere under c:\windows\

For example, your installer puts your dlls into:

\program files\<your app dir>\

or

\program files\common files\<your app name>\

(Note: The way you actually do this is to use the environment var: %ProgramFiles% or %ProgramFiles(x86)% to find where Program Files is.... you do not assume it is c:\program files\ ....)

and then sets a registry tag :

HKLM\software\<your app name>
-- dllLocation

The code that uses your dlls reads the registry, then dynamically links to the dlls in that location.

The above is the smart way to go.

You do not ever install your dlls, or third party dlls into \system32\ or \syswow64. If you have to statically load, you put your dlls in your exe dir (where they will be found). If you cannot predict the exe dir (e.g. some other exe is going to call your dll), you may have to put your dll dir into the search path (avoid this if at all poss!)

system32 and syswow64 are for Windows provided files... not for anyone elses files. The only reason folks got into the bad habit of putting stuff there is because it is always in the search path, and many apps/modules use static linking. (So, if you really get down to it, the real sin is static linking -- this is a sin in native code and managed code -- always always always dynamically link!)

Ran into the same issue and researched this for a few minutes.

I was taught to use Windows 3.1 and DOS, remember those days? Shortly after I worked with Macintosh computers strictly for some time, then began to sway back to Windows after buying a x64-bit machine.

There are actual reasons behind these changes (some would say historical significance), that are necessary for programmers to continue their work.

Most of the changes are mentioned above:

• Program Files vs Program Files (x86)

  In the beginning the 16/86bit files were written on, '86' Intel processors.

• System32 really means System64 (on 64-bit Windows)

  When developers first started working with Windows7, there were several compatibility issues where other applications where stored.

• SysWOW64 really means SysWOW32

  Essentially, in plain english, it means 'Windows on Windows within a 64-bit machine'. Each folder is indicating where the DLLs are located for applications it they wish to use them.

Here are two links with all the basic info you need:

• MSDN File System Redirector

• SysWow64 Explained

Hope this clears things up!

System32 is where Windows historically placed all 32bit DLLs, and System was for the 16bit DLLs. When microsoft created the 64 bit OS, everyone I know of expected the files to reside under System64, but Microsoft decided it made more sense to put 64bit files under System32. The only reasoning I have been able to find, is that they wanted everything that was 32bit to work in a 64bit Windows w/o having to change anything in the programs -- just recompile, and it's done. The way they solved this, so that 32bit applications could still run, was to create a 32bit windows subsystem called Windows32 On Windows64. As such, the acronym SysWOW64 was created for the System directory of the 32bit subsystem. The Sys is short for System, and WOW64 is short for Windows32OnWindows64.
Since windows 16 is already segregated from Windows 32, there was no need for a Windows 16 On Windows 64 equivalence. Within the 32bit subsystem, when a program goes to use files from the system32 directory, they actually get the files from the SysWOW64 directory. But the process is flawed.

It's a horrible design. And in my experience, I had to do a lot more changes for writing 64bit applications, that simply changing the System32 directory to read System64 would have been a very small change, and one that pre-compiler directives are intended to handle.

Other folks have already done a good job of explaining this ridiculus conundrum ... and I think Chris Hoffman did an even better job here: https://www.howtogeek.com/326509/whats-the-difference-between-the-system32-and-syswow64-folders-in-windows/

My two thoughts:

1. We all make stupid short-sighted mistakes in life. When Microsoft named their (at the time) Win32 DLL directory "System32", it made sense at the time ... they just didn't take into consideration what would happen if/when a 64-bit (or 128-bit) version of their OS got developed later - and the massive backward compatibility issue such a directory name would cause. Hindsight is always 20-20, so I can't really blame them (too much) for such a mistake. ...HOWEVER... When Microsoft did later develop their 64-bit operating system, even with the benefit of hindsight, why oh why would they make not only the exact same short-sighted mistake AGAIN but make it even worse by PURPOSEFULLY giving it such a misleading name?!? Shame on them!!! Why not AT LEAST actually name the directory "SysWin32OnWin64" to avoid confusion?!? And what happens when they eventually produce a 128-bit OS ... then where are they going to put their 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit DLLs?!?

2. All of this logic still seems completely flawed to me. On 32-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 32-bit DLLs; on 64-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 64-bit DLLs ... so that developers wouldn't have to make code changes, correct? The problem with this logic is that those developers are either now making 64-bit apps needing 64-bit DLLs or they're making 32-bit apps needing 32-bit DLLs ... either way, aren't they still screwed? I mean, if they're still making a 32-bit app, for it to now run on a 64-bit Windows, they'll now need to make a code change to find/reference the same ol' 32-bit DLL they used before (now located in SysWOW64). Or, if they're working on a 64-bit app, they're going to need to re-write their old app for the new OS anyway ... so a recompile/rebuild was going to be needed anyway!!!

Microsoft just hurts me sometimes.