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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 12:30 AM |
Slow read speed on P4C800E Dlx | Dave | Asus Motherboards | 6 | January 20th 04 02:36 AM |
Seagate SATA 120GB raw read errors | Kierkecaat | General | 0 | December 16th 03 02:52 PM |
CD burning speed determines read speed? | David K | General | 4 | July 22nd 03 09:31 AM |