If 32 bit compatibility wasn't required, it would be much closer in size.
WoW (Windows on Windows) takes up a bunch of space.


Bill F.

"Phillip Pi" <phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC> wrote in message
news:%23ZPOWLjKHHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Wow, big difference.
>
> On 12/27/2006 7:24 PM PT, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> Yes, they are different and by about 3GB after installation.
>>
>> "Phillip Pi" <phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC> wrote in message
>> news:ue1y3OiKHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Is it me or are the installed disk usages significantly different (a few
>>> GB) between a 32-bit and a 64-bit installation? This is on the same
>>> machine (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe with an Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU), same
>>> Ultimate Edition, and similiar options in installation. I did notice an
>>> extra Program Files (x86) in my C:\ root directory that takes over 300
>>> MB. Is this the only difference that makes the disk usage different?
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance.
> --
> Phillip Pi
> Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
> ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
> Symantec Corporation
> www.symantec.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Email: phillip_pi@symantec.comSYMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
> expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
> views of my employer. Thank you.