Installing 32-bit IE9 in 64-bit Windows 7

March 16, 2013 at 22:56:17
Specs: Win 7

I have 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium with SP-1 installed.
I downloaded IE9-Windows7-x86-enu.exe from the Microsoft
download center. Trying to install it gives this error message:

Wrong version of Internet Explorer installer
This version of setup doesn't support your Windows system type

I've been using the 32-bit version of IE8 (bundled in Windows 7)
because I was told (long, long ago, now) that there was a problem
in using the 64-bit version. I forget what the problem was. Does
the 64-bit verion of IE9 have the same problem? Will I be able
to install the 64-bit version of IE9? It will take about 2 hours to
download the much larger 64-bit version, and I don't care to do
that unless I can expect that it will both install and run okay.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

See More: Installing 32-bit IE9 in 64-bit Windows 7

Report •

March 16, 2013 at 23:07:54

You must install the correct bit-count for your system. For 64-bit you must install 64-bit programs only when available. If not available, then you should attempt to install the 32-bit. It will install for sure if it is an OS-compatible program.

Example: Adobe flash, IE9, IE10, etc. install 64-bit on 64-bit system. Install 32-bit on 32-bit system.

The program will decide if it should have the 32-bit part as well as 64-bit part or 64-bit part only.


Report •

March 17, 2013 at 05:34:54

The 32bit and 64bit versions are both installed on a windows 7 64bit machine, just because it's a 32bit application doesn't mean that it will not run on a 64bit platform. However you must choose the correct installer for your windows, in this case it's the 64bit installer, which will install both the 32bit and 64bit versions.

The 32bit version will be the one that is used by default and it's located here
C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer

The 64bit one will be here
C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer

Report •

March 17, 2013 at 06:38:02

Are you saying that a 32-bit installer won't work on 64-bit Windows?

That can't be, though. I knew 16-bit installers don't work, but I just
installed two 32-bit programs that certainly don't have 64-bit installers.
They are both from the 1990s.

I guess you're just saying that the 32-bit IE9 installer won't work on
64-bit Windows. I wonder why. Probably to maximize the amount
of disk space and memory they can fill. Microsoft products are
generally okay as far as quality goes, but they excell at quantity.
Bigger! Bigger! Bigger! Make it bigger! Five times bigger!
Ten times! A hundred!

So I've got a two-hour download.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Report •

Related Solutions

March 17, 2013 at 06:57:50

I have seen some of your other posts, so I know your on dial up. You should get broadband or get patience. Not really looking to debate anything here. Maybe someone else would like to.

Report •

March 17, 2013 at 08:29:13

Nobody said 32-bit installer will not work on 64-bit Windows. Re-read my post #1.


Report •

March 17, 2013 at 09:04:21

Gretti said I must choose the correct installer, which is the
64-bit installer because I have 64-bit Windows. I took that
at first to mean that only a 64-bit installer would work on a
64-bit operating system. Since that isn't the case, my best
guess is that the 32-bit IE9 installer won't work just because
Microsoft wants programs to be as large as possible.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Report •

March 17, 2013 at 10:54:03

When installing IE9 64-bit, IE9 32-bit is installed along with it. If you want 32-bit, you must download & install 64-bit. Odd, but that's how it works. But why not skip IE9 altogether & go for IE10? It's better, faster, more secure, & has a few added features such as spell check & "tab stretching".

Otherwise, check this explanation: Installing 32-bit IE 9 on 64-bit Windows

Report •

March 17, 2013 at 19:16:15

Always best to select 64 bit versions of Internet Explorer on a 64 bit machine - that's what MS would expect you to do.

Was there some specific reason you chose 32 bit?

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

Report •

March 17, 2013 at 19:54:07

32-bit is faster.

Report •

March 18, 2013 at 01:06:34

All I remember is that when I started using Windows 7, there
was a very definite recommendation to use the 32-bit version
of IE8, not the 64-bit version. I believe the 32-bit version is the
one that Microsoft put on the taskbar in 64-bit Windows 7, for
that reason. I never heard of a fix to whatever the problem was.


I downloaded the 64-bit version of IE9. It starts to install, but
apparently hangs soon after. A combination of reasons: The
IE9 install file, even at 35.5 MB, isn't everything that needs to
be installed. The installer wants to grab something from the
Internet before starting to actually install IE9, and I have my
computer configured not to allow that. I'm not sure if it is my
firewall or a disabled service, or both, stopping it.

There is a program which is supposed to get around that kink,
but I can't download it because.... (oh, you'll love this...) I haven't
activated Windows yet. That program is something like 7 MB
if I recall correctly. It probably adds a single key to the Registry.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Report •

March 18, 2013 at 04:57:04

There are some programs that are tightly integrated into the OS, such as IE9 or IE10. Therefore, you should always choose to install the correct bit-count for your OS. Using the program is a different matter. If the program gives you the option to run in any bit-count you wish, then choose to run that. There are some other programs that are not tightly integrated into the OS, such as MS Office 14, AKA Office 2010. You can install either 32-bit or 64-bit version on an 64-bit OS. If you install 64-bit, you can gain the ability to open very large files rapidly which 32-bit Office cannot handle at all due to memory management restrictions. But on the other hand some add-ons might not work on 64-bit Office because of lack of development for their 64-bit counterparts.


Report •

March 18, 2013 at 07:08:19

Unless I'm misinterpretting your comments, you appear to distrust Microsoft. And if that's the case, the problems you're having are at least partially self-inflicted.

"The installer wants to grab something from the
Internet before starting to actually install IE9, and I have my
computer configured not to allow that."

Nothing we can do about that. Temporarily let your shields down.

"There is a program which is supposed to get around that kink,
but I can't download it because...."

Kink? Why do you need a program to undo something you deliberately did?

"I haven't
activated Windows yet"

Why haven't you activated?

Report •

March 18, 2013 at 08:00:00

Somebody at Microsoft thought a program to get around the
problem I caused would be useful enough to write it and put it
on their website for download, so I'm not the only one...

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Report •

March 18, 2013 at 09:50:53

Your response doesn't address anything I asked.

Other than having dial-up, what's your reason for not allowing Windows to download updates? Do you at least have SP1 installed?

Rather than adding another program to fix your computer, why can't you just undo whatever it is you did?

Is your copy of Windows activated or not? If it's not, why not?

My guess is your major problem is dial-up. You probably have everything disabled so that your system doesn't slow to a crawl. I haven't used dial-up in well over 10 yrs but when I did, I used to run Windows Update or plan my downloads for overnite. Gretti said it well in response # 4, "get broadband or get patience".

Report •

March 18, 2013 at 20:16:37

My response did address one question you asked, though it
didn't answer the literal question of why I need a program to
undo something I did deliberately. But the fact that the program
exists -- and available from Microsoft -- shows that my situation
isn't particularly unusual.

I tried to answer your other question and respond to your other
comments, but couldn't. I deleted what I typed, over and over.
I decided to just say what I could. I had no intention of arguing
anything here. I was just letting you know what my situation
was, and it turned into a rant.

The reasons for not allowing Windows to download updates
are many. As someone who learned to program beginning
in the 1960's and continuing throughout the 1970's and 1980's,
I find the idea of changes being made to my computer without
my direct knowledge and consent to be absolute violations of
decent programming practices. It is about the worst thing any
programmer could do. It should never be done.

So I looked at the detailed descriptions of the updates, trying
to determine what they did. What I found was that out of some
fifteen updates that would have been pushed on my computer,
only one applied to my actual software configuration, and that
one was utterly unimportant.

My impression, as I implied above, is that the primary function
of Microsoft software is to fill memory and disk space. Actually
doing something that the end user wants is just a hook to get
users to go along with paying for it and letting it be installed.
That appears to have been true at least since the 1990's.

"Rather than adding another program to fix your computer, why
can't you just undo whatever it is you did?"

I was going for the easiest solution first. Since I don't know
which change I made blocks the IE9 install process, and there
was a program available to get around that problem, I thought
I'd use it. When I discovered that I can't use it, and that it is a
huge program to do an extremely simple thing, I thought I'd
tell you about it, just to let you know how things were going.
It wasn't something I was asking for help with. Since I can't
use that program, I'll probably look at my firewall settings and
my disabled services to determine which need to be reverted
in order to let the IE9 installer work. But I'm going to be very
uncomfortable about it.

As I said in the first post, I do have SP1 installed. I'm not
sure why, other than that some people said I should install it,
so I did. What I could stand to read of the heavily jargonized
descriptions of the contents once again suggests that almost
none of the many updates actually apply to my computer.

My reasons for not activating Windows are also many. First,
a hardware problem which is serious but not fatal means that
the motherboard probably wants to be replaced. I've been
holding off activating until after I could decide whether to get
a new motherboard, and then until I actually get around to
selecting, buying, and installing it. That might be something
you could do in three days, but it takes me more like three
years. That's just the way I am. I'm not asking for help with
that problem. I have patience, but I understand how other
people would not have patience with me.

I don't have everything disabled so that my system won't slow
to a crawl. I have "everything" disabled because it seems
unnecessary, so that my system should zoom without it. The
only slow thing is the Internet connection, and it is really only
a problem when websites put junk in their web pages. This
morning a complete page of nicely-formatted text displayed
instantly when I hit the enter key. Other pages on other sites
can take forever before they even begin to display, and it
appears to be largely due to advertisements. When I block
known advertising sites such as, download
and display are much faster, even if still not as fast as that
page of text.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Report •

Ask Question