A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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 » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old August 31st 17, 09:35 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default 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  
Old August 31st 17, 09:42 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default 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  
Old August 31st 17, 10:46 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default 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  
Old September 1st 17, 08:36 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 17, 12:31 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 17, 04:03 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mike S[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 496
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 17, 04:03 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 17, 12:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default 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  
Old September 4th 17, 04:01 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default 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  
Old September 4th 17, 07:25 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,447
Default 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  
Old September 6th 17, 12:20 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default 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  
Old September 9th 17, 08:21 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Dominique[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default 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  
Old September 9th 17, 08:32 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Dominique[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default 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  
Old September 20th 17, 04:01 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Micky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,528
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

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






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


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