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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 08/30/2017 05:35 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[snip] Well, I wasn't sure where to start; I think there was the 8080 before that. And so on back to the 4004, often claimed to be the first microprocessor (I think it was 4 bit - and might have been only 16 or 24 pins!). They use 16-pin DIP packages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004 -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." [Robert G. Ingersoll] |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
[snip] then 80586 or 586, which became known as Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth. Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't. x as a wildcard. x86 = 86, 186, 286, 386, .... Still doesn't sound right for x64 though. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." [Robert G. Ingersoll] |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:42:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] then 80586 or 586, which became known as Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth. Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't. x as a wildcard. x86 = 86, 186, 286, 386, .... That makes sense... Still doesn't sound right for x64 though. ....but no, that doesn't. So maybe that's not the right answer. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 08/31/2017 04:46 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:42:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] then 80586 or 586, which became known as Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth. Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't. x as a wildcard. x86 = 86, 186, 286, 386, .... That makes sense... Still doesn't sound right for x64 though. ...but no, that doesn't. So maybe that's not the right answer. Maybe it's only PART of the right answer. x64 could have been created to make it look like x86. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "What the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore." Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 24. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:36:39 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 08/31/2017 04:46 PM, Ken Blake wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:42:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] then 80586 or 586, which became known as Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth. Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't. x as a wildcard. x86 = 86, 186, 286, 386, .... That makes sense... Still doesn't sound right for x64 though. ...but no, that doesn't. So maybe that's not the right answer. Maybe it's only PART of the right answer. x64 could have been created to make it look like x86. Yes, that could well be. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 9/1/2017 4:31 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:36:39 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/31/2017 04:46 PM, Ken Blake wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:42:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] then 80586 or 586, which became known as Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth. Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't. x as a wildcard. x86 = 86, 186, 286, 386, .... That makes sense... Still doesn't sound right for x64 though. ...but no, that doesn't. So maybe that's not the right answer. Maybe it's only PART of the right answer. x64 could have been created to make it look like x86. Yes, that could well be. There are some interesting posts here Why does x86 represent 32bit when x64 represents 64bit? [closed] https://serverfault.com/questions/18...presents-64bit |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 20:03:30 -0700, Mike S wrote:
On 9/1/2017 4:31 PM, Ken Blake wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:36:39 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/31/2017 04:46 PM, Ken Blake wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:42:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] then 80586 or 586, which became known as Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth. Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't. x as a wildcard. x86 = 86, 186, 286, 386, .... That makes sense... Still doesn't sound right for x64 though. ...but no, that doesn't. So maybe that's not the right answer. Maybe it's only PART of the right answer. x64 could have been created to make it look like x86. Yes, that could well be. There are some interesting posts here Why does x86 represent 32bit when x64 represents 64bit? [closed] https://serverfault.com/questions/18...presents-64bit Yes, mildly interesting, but just a bunch of opinions, rather than any real information. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 08/30/2017 05:35 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
e bitwidth. Dear John, Thanks for the recital of old processors. I think that you forgot the 8088, which I think was in the original IBM PC. Well, I wasn't sure where to start; I think there was the 8080 before that. And so on back to the 4004, often claimed to be the first microprocessor (I think it was 4 bit - and might have been only 16 or 24 pins!). I still have my first Radio Shack electronic calculator. It's got a 4004 probably some kind of a minor collector's item |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 09/02/2017 10:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
snip Maybe it's only PART of the right answer. x64 could have been created to make it look like x86. Yes, that could well be. There are some interesting posts here Why does x86 represent 32bit when x64 represents 64bit? [closed] https://serverfault.com/questions/18...presents-64bit Yes, mildly interesting, but just a bunch of opinions, rather than any real information. Here is something that would make sense to me: I think it's understandable why a 386, 486 or 586 (for example) could all collectively be referred to as x86. As to 64bit CPUs we have both Intel (x86_64) and AMD (AMD_64) thus x64 would simply mean any 64bit CPU without regard to manufacturer |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 27/08/2017 1:34 AM, micky wrote:
which says "This package provides the Dell ControlPoint System Application and is supported on OptiPlex, XPS Notebook, Tablet, Latitude and Precision models that are running the following Windows Operating Systems: Vista (32-bit) and Windows 7 (32-bit)." Alas, I have 64-bit, but further down it says "Format Description: Dell Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 32bit format have been designed to run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. Dell Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 64bit format will only run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. When selecting a device driver update be sure to select the one that is appropriate for your operating system." Yes, 99.9% of 32-bit apps work just fine in 64-bit Windows. There's only a few very specialized ones that require a specific 32-bit OS. Yousuf Khan -- Sent from Giganews on Thunderbird on my Toshiba laptop |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
On 09/02/2017 10:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 20:03:30 -0700, Mike S wrote: On 9/1/2017 4:31 PM, Ken Blake wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:36:39 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/31/2017 04:46 PM, Ken Blake wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:42:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote: snip Yes, that could well be. There are some interesting posts here Why does x86 represent 32bit when x64 represents 64bit? [closed] https://serverfault.com/questions/18...presents-64bit Yes, mildly interesting, but just a bunch of opinions, rather than any real information. Posted yesterday but did not see it appear so re-trying Here is something that would make sense to me: I think it's understandable why a 386, 486 or 586 (for example) could all collectively be referred to as x86. As to 64bit CPUs we have both Intel (x86_64) and AMD (AMD_64) thus x64 would simply mean any 64bit CPU without regard to manufacturer |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
Mark Lloyd écrivait :
On 08/30/2017 02:44 PM, Kirk Bubul wrote: snip BTW, at the time I had a machine with a V20. Like an 8088 but from another company but with hardware address calculation and additional instructions including those of the 80188 and the Z80). |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
Dominique écrivait
: Mark Lloyd écrivait : On 08/30/2017 02:44 PM, Kirk Bubul wrote: snip BTW, at the time I had a machine with a V20. Like an 8088 but from another company but with hardware address calculation and additional instructions including those of the 80188 and the Z80). I wanted to say that the V20 was made by NEC. Many peoples replaced their 8088 with those, because the 8088 needed another chip for calculations while the NEC V20 had all the functions included and was "pins compatible". |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?
In alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, on Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:25:35 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote: On 27/08/2017 1:34 AM, micky wrote: which says "This package provides the Dell ControlPoint System Application and is supported on OptiPlex, XPS Notebook, Tablet, Latitude and Precision models that are running the following Windows Operating Systems: Vista (32-bit) and Windows 7 (32-bit)." Alas, I have 64-bit, but further down it says "Format Description: Dell Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 32bit format have been designed to run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. Dell Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 64bit format will only run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. When selecting a device driver update be sure to select the one that is appropriate for your operating system." Yes, 99.9% of 32-bit apps work just fine in 64-bit Windows. There's only a few very specialized ones that require a specific 32-bit OS. Yousuf Khan Thanks. I'm convinced (though I haven't had time to install anything yet. I delayed answering until I did, but it's taking too long). I wonder why they have to be so convoluted in their description. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|