Guest Mike Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Hi I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. How do I know? Thank you. Mike
Guest GreenieLeBrun Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Mike wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > How do I know? > > Thank you. > > Mike x86 is the 32 bit OS and x64 is the 64 bit version
Guest Mike Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Jul 31, 9:18 am, "GreenieLeBrun" <GreenieLeB...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Mike wrote: > > Hi > > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > > How do I know? > > > Thank you. > > > Mike > > x86 is the 32 bit OS and x64 is the 64 bit version Many thanks. Mike
Guest Paul Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Mike wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > How do I know? > > Thank you. > > Mike x86 could be viewed as related to a 32 bit version of something. x64 could be viewed as related to a 64 bit version of something. Both WinXP and Vista are available as 32 bit and 64 bit versions. A current generation Intel or AMD processor, can run either a 32 bit or 64 bit OS. But an older processor (like my Pentium 4 or my AthlonXP), can only run the 32 bit version of the OS. The 64 bit version of OS, is also backward compatible with older programs, and if it didn't do that at least, it would be a very lonely OS. What that means is, if you have a 64 bit capable processor, you can use a 64 bit OS, but run that old 32 bit version of Photoshop you've always used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64 Paul
Guest Mike Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Jul 31, 9:32 am, Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote: > Mike wrote: > > Hi > > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > > How do I know? > > > Thank you. > > > Mike > > x86 could be viewed as related to a 32 bit version of something. > x64 could be viewed as related to a 64 bit version of something. > > Both WinXP and Vista are available as 32 bit and 64 bit versions. > A current generation Intel or AMD processor, can run either a > 32 bit or 64 bit OS. But an older processor (like my Pentium 4 > or my AthlonXP), can only run the 32 bit version of the OS. > > The 64 bit version of OS, is also backward compatible with older > programs, and if it didn't do that at least, it would be a very > lonely OS. What that means is, if you have a 64 bit capable processor, > you can use a 64 bit OS, but run that old 32 bit version of Photoshop > you've always used. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64 > > Paul Thank you very much, Paul. Your explanation is so helpful that I can fully understand. Mike
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > How do I know? x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using 32-bit (x86). To be sure, hold down the Windows key and press Pause|Break. If it's 64-bit, it will say so there. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Mike Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Jul 31, 9:39 am, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <Sulfate...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi > > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > > How do I know? > > x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > > The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > 32-bit (x86). > > To be sure, hold down the Windows key and press Pause|Break. If it's > 64-bit, it will say so there. > > -- > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience > Please Reply to the Newsgroup Thank you very much for your information. Mike
Guest M.I.5¾ Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >> How do I know? > > > > x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > > The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > 32-bit (x86). > For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). The first 32 bit processor was the 80386 but mainstream 32 bit Windows was still a long way off..
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:02:42 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 9:39 am, "Ken Blake, MVP" > <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <Sulfate...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > > > I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > > > How do I know? > > > > x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > > > > The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > > 32-bit (x86). > > > > To be sure, hold down the Windows key and press Pause|Break. If it's > > 64-bit, it will say so there. > > > > -- > > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience > > Please Reply to the Newsgroup > > Thank you very much for your information. You're welcome. Glad to help. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > >> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > >> How do I know? > > > > > > > > x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > > > > The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > > 32-bit (x86). > > > > For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which > started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and > wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 instead. > The first 32 bit > processor was the 80386 but mainstream 32 bit Windows was still a long way > off.. > > -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Bob I Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > >>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >> >>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi >>>> >>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>> How do I know? >>> >>> >>> >>>x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>> >>>The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>32-bit (x86). >>> >> >>For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which >>started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >>wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). > > > > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 > instead. > > Make that IBM PC, other manufacturers did use the 8086, Olivetti and Xerox for a couple of examples. > >>The first 32 bit >>processor was the 80386 but mainstream 32 bit Windows was still a long way >>off.. >> >> > >
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:14:58 -0500, Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" > > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > >>news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... > >> > >>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Hi > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > >>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > >>>> How do I know? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > >>> > >>>The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > >>>32-bit (x86). > >>> > >> > >>For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which > >>started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and > >>wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). > > > > > > > > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 > > instead. > > > > > > Make that IBM PC, other manufacturers did use the 8086, Olivetti and > Xerox for a couple of examples. Yes, that's what I meant, but thanks for the clarification. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>> How do I know? >>> >>> >>> >>> x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>> >>> The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>> 32-bit (x86). >>> >> >> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which >> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). > > > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 > instead. Pretty similar, though. :-) It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the 8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16 bit word size for the *data* bus.
Guest Bob I Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Bill in Co. wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > >>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >><no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>>news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>> >>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>>> How do I know? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>>> >>>>The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>>32-bit (x86). >>>> >>> >>>For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which >>>started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >>>wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >> >> >>And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >>instead. > > > Pretty similar, though. :-) > It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the > 8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16 > bit word size for the *data* bus. > > Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on the 8086. IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about the CPU for the IBM PC.
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:47 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" > > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > >> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... > >>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > >>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > >>>> How do I know? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > >>> > >>> The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > >>> 32-bit (x86). > >>> > >> > >> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which > >> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and > >> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). > > > > > > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 > > instead. > > Pretty similar, though. :-) > It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the > 8088 and 8086 anymore. The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit. > I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16 > bit word size for the *data* bus. > -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:47 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>>> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>>>> How do I know? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>>>> >>>>> The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>>> 32-bit (x86). >>>>> >>>> >>>> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors >>>> which >>>> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >>>> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >>> >>> >>> And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >>> instead. >> >> Pretty similar, though. :-) >> It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the >> 8088 and 8086 anymore. > > > The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit. > > >> I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16 >> bit word size for the *data* bus. That's what I said too. But there was a notable difference between the two, and maybe the 8088 only had a 8 bit *data* bus.
Guest M.I.5¾ Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:fah394pd7d476sb21pifdif108ddn1d2a1@4ax.com... > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >> >> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >> >> How do I know? >> > >> > >> > >> > x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >> > >> > The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >> > 32-bit (x86). >> > >> >> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which >> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). > > > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 > instead. > Not correct. Although the *first* PCs did indeed use an 8088, there were plenty of PCs that were fitted with 8086 processors (and I still possess one - but only because it's slow enough to run a particular application properly). It was the 80186 that never made it into a PC.
Guest M.I.5¾ Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%23sCL9A18IHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... Bill in Co. wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > >>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >><no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>>news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>> >>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>>> How do I know? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>>> >>>>The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>>32-bit (x86). >>>> >>> >>>For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which >>>started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >>>wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >> >> >>And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >>instead. > > > Pretty similar, though. :-) > It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the > 8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16 > bit word size for the *data* bus. > Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on the 8086. IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about the CPU for the IBM PC. --------------- Indeed. The IBM PC was an every expense spared design as IBM considered that they were unlikely to sell more than half a million. They turned out to be right, but their competitors, who were able to easily clone the design, sold millions. Many of their competitors (including Amstrad - not noted for splashing out) used the 8086 and produced machines that outperformed the IBM.
Guest M.I.5¾ Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:9td49451cfd3ii00pl50ag2stsoa4015k3@4ax.com... > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:47 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >> > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> >> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >> >>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi >> >>>> >> >>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >> >>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >> >>>> How do I know? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >> >>> >> >>> The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >> >>> 32-bit (x86). >> >>> >> >> >> >> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors >> >> which >> >> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor >> >> and >> >> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >> > >> > >> > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >> > instead. >> >> Pretty similar, though. :-) >> It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the >> 8088 and 8086 anymore. > > > The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit. > That's not quite true. The 8088 was as much a 16 bit processor as the 8086 - at least internally. The difference lay in the width of the external data bus. The 8088 used an 8 bit data bus whereas the 8086 used a 16 bit bus. Even then the difference wasn't quite that straightforward, because the 8086 could't import or export 16 bit data in one go on its 16 bit bus. In fact it read the 2 8 bit halves separately but it was able to read both halves significantly quicker than the 8088 could read its 8 bit bus twice. When running a program that required no branches, the 8086 read each half of the data bus alternately. It was thus possible to run programs where the 16 bit instructions were missaligned in memory and the 8 bit instuctions were read on the high byte of the bus. This actually slowed the processor down as it had to swap the data around internally. The architecture was almost closer to an interleaved memory model than a true 16 bit model. Some PC architectures today closely emulate this model for improved memory access speeds, however, it is not the processor that does this but one of the support chips.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) M.I.5¾ wrote: > "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:%23sCL9A18IHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > > Bill in Co. wrote: >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>>> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>>>> How do I know? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>>>> >>>>> The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>>> 32-bit (x86). >>>>> >>>> >>>> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors >>>> which >>>> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >>>> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >>> >>> >>> And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >>> instead. >> >> >> Pretty similar, though. :-) >> It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the >> 8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a >> 16 >> bit word size for the *data* bus. >> > > Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on > the 8086. You mean the external *data bus*. (the term "memory bus" is a bit ambiguous to me) What about the address bus? Well, they both had 20 bit addressing, as I recall, so I presume that meant both had twenty *actual* address lines (i.e. A0 thru A19), (unless some tricks were used, an example of which is noted below). This just reminded me; one of these older chips had a *multiplexed* address and data bus! I think it was the 8085. What a mess. (Well, ok, not exactly, as it was sorted out to the outside world by another chip). > IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about > the CPU for the IBM PC. Yup. > --------------- > > Indeed. The IBM PC was an every expense spared design as IBM considered > that they were unlikely to sell more than half a million. They turned out > to be right, but their competitors, who were able to easily clone the > design, sold millions. Many of their competitors (including Amstrad - not > noted for splashing out) used the 8086 and produced machines that > outperformed the IBM. And the very first IBM PC's didn't even have a floppy drive, as I recall (one had to use an external cassette for storage). And then came the 5.25 inch drive(s).
Guest Tim Slattery Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >Pretty similar, though. :-) >It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the >8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16 >bit word size for the *data* bus. 16 bit word size, which meant that they used a kludge to get 20-bit (1MB) addressing. A program on that machine set a base register first. Then the contents of that would be left-shifted four bytes (multiplied by 16) and added to whatever 16-bit address was specified in the instruction. That was segmented memory: if you moved more than 64KB from your base, you had to reset the base register. If made address arithmetic ... interesting. In the 80286 protected mode, there was still a base register, but it now held an index into the "Global Selector Table". The OS (maybe the hardware?) would go to that table to find the base address to add to the 16-bit offset in the instruction. Address arithmetic became even more interesting. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
Guest Bob I Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Bill in Co. wrote: > M.I.5¾ wrote: > >>"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:%23sCL9A18IHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> >> >>Bill in Co. wrote: >> >>>Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >>>><no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>>>>news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>>>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>>>>> How do I know? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>>>>> >>>>>>The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>>>>32-bit (x86). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors >>>>>which >>>>>started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and >>>>>wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >>>> >>>> >>>>And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >>>>instead. >>> >>> >>>Pretty similar, though. :-) >>>It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the >>>8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a >>>16 >>>bit word size for the *data* bus. >>> >> >>Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on >>the 8086. > > > You mean the external *data bus*. (the term "memory bus" is a bit > ambiguous to me) Correct, the EXTERNAL connection, internally they were both 16 bit. > > What about the address bus? Well, they both had 20 bit addressing, as I > recall, so I presume that meant both had twenty *actual* address lines (i.e. > A0 thru A19), (unless some tricks were used, an example of which is noted > below). > > This just reminded me; one of these older chips had a *multiplexed* address > and data bus! I think it was the 8085. What a mess. (Well, ok, > not exactly, as it was sorted out to the outside world by another chip). > > >>IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about >>the CPU for the IBM PC. > > > Yup. > > >>--------------- >> >>Indeed. The IBM PC was an every expense spared design as IBM considered >>that they were unlikely to sell more than half a million. They turned out >>to be right, but their competitors, who were able to easily clone the >>design, sold millions. Many of their competitors (including Amstrad - not >>noted for splashing out) used the 8086 and produced machines that >>outperformed the IBM. > > > And the very first IBM PC's didn't even have a floppy drive, as I recall > (one had to use an external cassette for storage). And then came the 5.25 > inch drive(s). > >
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:24:37 +0100, "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:9td49451cfd3ii00pl50ag2stsoa4015k3@4ax.com... > > The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit. > > > > That's not quite true. The 8088 was as much a 16 bit processor as the > 8086 - at least internally. The difference lay in the width of the external > data bus. The 8088 used an 8 bit data bus whereas the 8086 used a 16 bit > bus. Yes, that's correct. I was trying to be brief, so I eliminated that detail. Thanks. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:02:20 +0100, "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:fah394pd7d476sb21pifdif108ddn1d2a1@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" > > <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > >> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... > >> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <SulfateIon@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? > >> >> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. > >> >> How do I know? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. > >> > > >> > The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using > >> > 32-bit (x86). > >> > > >> > >> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which > >> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and > >> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). > > > > > > And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 > > instead. > > > > Not correct. Although the *first* PCs did indeed use an 8088, there were > plenty of PCs that were fitted with 8086 processors As I said earlier in another message, yes, if you mean "PC" generically, that's correct. I was referring specifically to the IBM PC. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 2, 2008 Posted August 2, 2008 Re: XP (x86) or (x64) Bob I wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: > >> M.I.5¾ wrote: >> >>> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:%23sCL9A18IHA.356@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> >>> Bill in Co. wrote: >>> >>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:56:13 +0100, "M.I.5¾" >>>>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >>>>>> news:7o5294pkro0kbun757ct26s2g1n93u8vf3@4ax.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike >>>>>>> <SulfateIon@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are? >>>>>>>> I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use. >>>>>>>> How do I know? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using >>>>>>> 32-bit (x86). >>>>>> >>>>>> For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors >>>>>> which >>>>>> started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor >>>>>> and >>>>>> wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). >>>>> >>>>> And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088 >>>>> instead. >>>> >>>> Pretty similar, though. :-) >>>> It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between >>>> the >>>> 8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a >>>> 16 bit word size for the *data* bus. >>> >>> Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on >>> the 8086. >> >> You mean the external *data bus*. (the term "memory bus" is a bit >> ambiguous to me) > > Correct, the EXTERNAL connection, internally they were both 16 bit. So the 8086 had an external 16 bit data bus, which was a bit more expensive to utilize (and required 16 individual lines), instead of the 8 bit data bus of the 8088 (and most other chips at that time). What I was also getting at is that RAM memory (or ROM memory) has both an *address* bus AND a *data* bus connected to it, so the term "memory bus" is a bit ambiguous (at least to me).
Recommended Posts