# Gem question: "win32" vs. "ruby"

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/gem-question-win32-vs-ruby/77621>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [November 29, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/gem-question-win32-vs-ruby/77621 "2006-11-29T06:04:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeff](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@jeff](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jeff)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2006, 6:04am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/gem-question-win32-vs-ruby/77621/1 "2006-11-29T06:04:01Z")

</div>

Often when I install a new gem, or try to update a gem I already have,  
I’ll be presented with a list of choices for which version I want to  
install.

And often I see two entries with the same version number, but one will  
say “(win32)” after it, and the other will say “(ruby)”. I assume if  
I’m on WinXP, I should choose the win32 version - but why? What’s the  
difference?

And so if there is _not_ a win32 version, is it ok to install the  
“ruby” version on a Windows system? For example, the latest Mongrel  
gem (0.3.13.4) does not have a win32 equivalent.

Thanks  
Jeff

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeff](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@jeff](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jeff)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2006, 9:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/gem-question-win32-vs-ruby/77621/2 "2006-11-29T09:36:29Z")

</div>

On 11/29/06, Jeff [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> “ruby” version on a Windows system? For example, the latest Mongrel  
> gem (0.3.13.4) does not have a win32 equivalent.
> 
> Thanks  
> Jeff

Hi,

the difference is when the gem contains compiled extension. On other  
platforms, it is assumed that you have a compiler installed by  
default, so gem can compile the extension without problems. On  
windows, no compiler is installed normally. To work around that,  
-win32 gems contain precompiled extension.

You can use the not-precompiled gem provided you have the compiler  
installed (best and most safe one is the one that was used to compile  
ruby itself, in the case of one click it is VC6) and you have set up  
the compile environment vars (i.e. run vcvars32 before running gem  
install).

In the case of mongrel, I’m not sure if 0.3.13.4 works on windows. To  
check see mongrel-users mailing list archive on rubyforge. There is a  
newer version in works that is almost done, but they are finishing the  
win32 part (it’s like 0.3.18 or 0.3.19). You can fetch it from  
‘prereleases’ repository, gem install mongrel --source  
[http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/releases](http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/releases), but read the mailing list  
archive before you do. 0.3.13 is the latest stable for win32.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jeff](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@jeff](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jeff)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/gem-question-win32-vs-ruby/77621/3 "2006-11-29T20:02:40Z")

</div>

Jan S. wrote:

> the difference is when the gem contains compiled extension. On other  
> platforms, it is assumed that you have a compiler installed by  
> default, so gem can compile the extension without problems. On  
> windows, no compiler is installed normally. To work around that,  
> -win32 gems contain precompiled extension.

Awesome… thanks Jan, that makes total sense now.

Jeff