Is FL Studio 12 really a 64 bit application?

[donkey tugger]

I am right and you are wrong.

Back at the old grey school, I would win and you would lose
But you've got everything now,
You've got everything now.

Ahhh..

[SampleScience]

In general, it doesn't really matter into which folder a 64-bit product is installed to ...

In case of FL Studio you can find the reason here: https://support.image-line.com/knowledg ... 34&ans=415

Why does the 64 Bit version install into Program Files (x86)? - Both the 32 and 64 Bit versions of FL Studio are installed to C:\Program Files (x86)\Image-Line\FL Studio. FL Studio 32 Bit = FL.exe and FL Studio 64 Bit = FL64.exe. This really, absolutely, doesn't matter, but people seem to fret about it, so let's just keep this between us and not start a global panic, OK? Program Files (x86) and Program Files(x64) folders are not really important, you can point installers anywhere. A future release will probably install to the standard Windows locations. We are doing this for two reasons 1. To minimize the FL Studio footprint when both versions are installed as they share a lot of content which takes up disk space. It's an additional 140 MB when combined vs an additional 950 MB if installed separately. 2. For this release we want people to have both 32 and 64 Bit version installed, for technical support & testing purposes.

Thank you. I didn't see that. It's no big deal but it gave me the impression that FL might be mixing 32 bit components in its 64 exe.

I also noticed better stability with 32 bit plugins, so I thought that it could still be a 32 bit app.

[tooneba]

I'm interested in those people's reaction when they found you can't even choose where to install Waves products.

[LeVzi]

Image-Line could (and should) separate the installers, and give those who want to install a 64-bit version their own installer.

Also they should give an option not to install all the crap FL Studio comes with. This program has become a real bloat over the years! Whoever needs SimSynth, Wasp, FLSlayer, piece of shit effects of 15 years ago, useless samples, demos from some jerks I don't want to know about, a gazillion Browser structures, etc., etc., etc.! Come on!

But no, they're so special, they just can't be arsed!!!

Thats purely for backwards compatibility, which is needed. So they cannot just remove it all.

[LeVzi]

I'm interested in those people's reaction when they found you can't even choose where to install Waves products.

I tried to look at where my waves stuff goes and I gave up after a while.

It's there and works, thats more important to me.

[tooneba]

I don't give in to these kind of authoritarianism

[gas pump]

How do you complicate a simple question?

Get a thread full of #triggered fan bois to dictate their opinions.

[omiroad]

In general, it doesn't really matter into which folder a 64-bit product is installed to ...

In case of FL Studio you can find the reason here: https://support.image-line.com/knowledg ... 34&ans=415

Why does the 64 Bit version install into Program Files (x86)? - Both the 32 and 64 Bit versions of FL Studio are installed to C:\Program Files (x86)\Image-Line\FL Studio. FL Studio 32 Bit = FL.exe and FL Studio 64 Bit = FL64.exe. This really, absolutely, doesn't matter, but people seem to fret about it, so let's just keep this between us and not start a global panic, OK? Program Files (x86) and Program Files(x64) folders are not really important, you can point installers anywhere. A future release will probably install to the standard Windows locations. We are doing this for two reasons 1. To minimize the FL Studio footprint when both versions are installed as they share a lot of content which takes up disk space. It's an additional 140 MB when combined vs an additional 950 MB if installed separately. 2. For this release we want people to have both 32 and 64 Bit version installed, for technical support & testing purposes.

It sounds as if they're admitting they shouldn't have done it

That's what you gather from it? Really?

[Halonmusic]

Image-Line could (and should) separate the installers, and give those who want to install a 64-bit version their own installer.

Also they should give an option not to install all the crap FL Studio comes with. This program has become a real bloat over the years! Whoever needs SimSynth, Wasp, FLSlayer, piece of shit effects of 15 years ago, useless samples, demos from some jerks I don't want to know about, a gazillion Browser structures, etc., etc., etc.! Come on!

But no, they're so special, they just can't be arsed!!!

Why bash fl studio? Whats wrong with simsynth, Wasp and flslayer? Its a gazillion times better than any other daws out their with their boring gui and hype.

[sfxsound3]

Why not? FL is above criticism? Have you heard the word 'bloatware'? FL is bloatware! Do I like it? NO! Can they change that? YES! Why are they not doing it? Because they're .... ...., that's why!

Holy cow!!! Yours but not mine.

[pc2000]

I'm interested in those people's reaction when they found you can't even choose where to install Waves products.

I tried to look at where my waves stuff goes and I gave up after a while.

It's there and works, thats more important to me.

The plugins on PC- are located in the program files(x86) folder. You'll clearly see a Waves folder in the tree. In that folder you'll see a folder named-(Plug-ins V9) this is where the plugins are actually located. The WaveShell-VST files that loads the plugins into your DAW, are usually located in the systems default vst folders for 32 and 64bit plugins.

[SampleScience]

Well, at least now I know I can put all my VST in the same folder. Here's an article that explained that it doesn't make a difference where the files are + other interesting things (for Windows users):

https://www.howtogeek.com/56701/htg-exp ... windows-7/

[Image-Line]

It sounds as if they're admitting they shouldn't have done it...

Really? ...and at the same time we put it in a Knowledge Base article for everyone and Google search to find? The article has has 1.9 Million views BTW

It's a joke, about the very point this thread exemplifies. It's a nerdy, technical issue that people don't understand and many seem not to want to understand. As noted, many people seem to freak out about it, because they don't really understand or have some sort of OCD about file-storage. The passage quoted from the KB article says everything we want to say, including that it won't always be this way.

Have you heard the word 'bloatware'? FL is bloatware! Do I like it? NO! Can they change that? YES! Why are they not doing it? Because they're .... ...., that's why!

Because we're a business you mean? And the demos content helps sell the program. When you start your own software company you can run it how you like and deliver that 2 MB installer you want. No?

However...seriously, indeed FL Studio installer has grown over the years:



And yes we are keeping an eye on it, but 700 MB is nothing these days. Chrome will cache that much in a few minutes, or it is the equivalent of watching 2 short YouTube videos.

NOTES: FL Studio 12.5 contains 160 MB of demo-related content. We have no qualms about that in comparison to the benefits it brings in sales and compared to the 10's GB of samples and VSTs most people download within days of taking an interest in DAWs. The FL Studio installer is well under the size of our competition. Except Reaper...nobody beats the mighty Reaper

PS: Yes FL Studio 64 Bit is a 64 Bit application and FL Studio 32 Bit is a 32 Bit application.

Regards Scott

[gas pump]

How do you complicate a simple question?

Get a thread full of #triggered fan bois to dictate their opinions.

It's like I have ESPN.

[omiroad]

Woa, Scott dropping in. Big fan. :p

Also, I'm currently requesting a Cubase installer that's not 11GB. Perspective.