A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old August 20th 04, 08:24 AM
Roger Binns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
In article ,
Ken Hagan wrote:
Nick Roberts wrote:

I don't think that's strictly correct. My memory is that Windows 95
was itself the first Windows which supported 32-bit code, when it
was launched (in 1995 ;-) The immediately prior version of Windows
was
3.11, which was 16-bit only (and ran on top of MS-DOS).


The first version of NT (1991?) called itself Windows 3.1. It had its


No.


The first version of NT was released in 1993 and was called Windows NT 3.1.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...98/winntfs.asp

Details and screenshots of all Windows releases are at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Win...roGraphic.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Roger


  #272  
Old August 23rd 04, 02:07 AM
Stephen Sprunk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Douglas Siebert" wrote in message
...
(Patrick Schaaf) writes:

Casper H.S. Dik writes:


"Stephen Sprunk" writes:
AMD64 is just another platform, and the third (or higher) platform
supported
is of marginal cost compared to the second. The free software world has
had
to contend with dozens of platforms for over two decades, and so the
fact
Linux (and all the common apps) ported over cleanly is hardly
surprising.


It's not really all that simple: while you can run a pure 64 bit OS on
AMD64, there are many Linux applications only available as "32-bit, IA32"
binaries.


There are a few, yes, but most of the folks developing Linux couldn't care
less if they cause closed-source developers a little pain. I haven't heard
any complaints about problems running i386 binaries on amd64 kernels, so it
appears to be a non-issue -- unlike with WinXP64.

I don't see many of them on the ~1000 Linux systems I've got at work.
There are bound to be some commercial apps where that's the case,
but I'm sure Stephen was thinking about the ease for
_open_source_software_
to be ported over.


Actually, it applies to commercial software too. I worked at a company
where the main product (an embedded OS) was shipped on a dozen different CPU
types and once the cost of porting was paid (over a decade ago) for the
second arch, the cost of adding a new arch was nearly zero.

The key is making sure all new code is written portably, which so far has
not been necessary in the Windows world. Some ISVs may decide it's cheaper
to develop non-portable code over time; they'll pay dearly for porting once
a decade and usually drop support for the older arch (as happened in the
Win16-to-Win32 conversion).

Do the AMD64 versions of Redhat and SuSE recompile everything? It seems
kind to silly to have a 64 bit /bin/ls, for instance. They always left
most stuff for which performance didn't matter compiled as i386, and for
stuff where performance mattered (the kernel, openssl libraries, etc.)
there were i686 versions. I would assume it is the same way for AMD64
stuff, but perhaps I'm wrong. If I am, it sure seems like they'd have
to do a lot more versions if they bugfix /bin/ls and have to compile a
64 bit version to go along with the i386 version!


If /bin/ls were patched, somebody has to recompile it for dozens of other
platforms, so what's the marginal cost in recompiling for amd64? It seems
to be less than the cost of deciding which binaries on an amd64 installation
should be kept as i386 and compiling your distribution appropriately.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

  #273  
Old August 23rd 04, 11:25 PM
Nate Edel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In comp.sys.intel David Brown wrote:
Win32S was available before Win95, as was NT 3.51 (I believe NT 3.5 was the
first easily-availble version of NT - marketing's idea of persuading people
that it was a mature product).


NT 3.1 was the first version available, with the 3.1 selected to be in
parallel with the version of (non-NT) Windows available at the time.

not support multi-tasking. It was mainly used for "big" programs, like CAD,
or development tools, which could take advantage of the better memory
management.


And for a lot of the Windows 3.x web browsers. I remember deploying a ton
of copies of Win32s so the lawyers I was supporting could use some
now-archaic version of netscape while the higher-ups in IT planned how to
transition to Win 95 (and then to WinNT 4, which was what we ended up moving
to, right around when I left.)

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Harddisks: Seek, Read, Write, Read, Write, Slow ? Marc de Vries General 7 July 26th 04 02:57 AM
Please Read...A Must Read Trini4life2k2 General 1 March 8th 04 01:30 AM
Slow read speed on P4C800E Dlx Dave Asus Motherboards 6 January 20th 04 03:36 AM
Seagate SATA 120GB raw read errors Kierkecaat General 0 December 16th 03 03:52 PM
CD burning speed determines read speed? David K General 4 July 22nd 03 09:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.