Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > What's the difference between drivers and applications

Reply
Thread Tools

What's the difference between drivers and applications

 
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
All your history has very little relevance to the fact that AMD decided
to do the 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture when Intel said it
was stupid and there was no market for it. It was only after the AMD64
CPUs were released that Intel decided there was a market for this
because of the popularity of the AMD64 and Microsoft's Windows x64.


Intel_Fan wrote:
> Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post but this
> isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements. Very interesting
> that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort to imitate AMD64"
> especially since Intel released a 64 bit microprocessor (Feb 27, 1989) two
> years before AMD manufactured their first processor, the Am386, in 1991
> (nearly three years after the Intel 386SX). I'll post references for these
> dates if you like. AMD is an excellent company to be sure and I respect
> their decision years ago to optimize their processors to the old x86
> instruction set rather than concentrate on new op codes as Intel did. It was
> a strategy that allows those of you with AMD processors to enjoy a general
> benefit in terms of speed today.
>
> Jumping off the deep end with unfounded inflammatory statements after
> suggesting that someone else "get educated!" is not a very good method of
> garnering credibility.
>
>
>
> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>You need to get educated! AMD64 is NOT aka EM64T!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort to imitate AMD64 without publicly
>>admitting AMD64 has the brains and the balls to do something Intel was too
>>chicken and too stupid to even think of on their own!!!!
>>
>>
>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>>AMD64 (aka EM64T) provides direct hardware support for 16/32-bit user
>>>mode under a 64-bit OS, but it has a hard requirement for the OS to be
>>>fully 64-bit. Since drivers are part of the OS, they must be 64-bit as
>>>well.
>>>
>>>Now, I suppose someone truly perverse could find a way to translate
>>>32-bit drivers into 64-bit ones, or provide some sort of emulation, but
>>>drivers are by their very nature extremely unportable and expect to have
>>>access to all sorts of things that emulation or translation can't
>>>feasibly take into account. In short, it's a _lot_ simpler for the HW
>>>vendors to port their drivers (even when multiplied by the thousands of
>>>drivers out there) than it is for MS to support 32-bit drivers on an x64
>>>system.

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DKI
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
Well Even though intel tried to make a move away from the old X86 platform
and release a new 64bit platform built from the ground up that failed only
because it of most apps being X86 and they got little support from
manufuctures.

This is where AMD make there market going 64bit based on the old X86 with
the 64bit extentions.

Even though the IA64 is much faster and a true 64bit processor it was'nt
much help to companies and worth many developers time to rewrite the the
software and cost to much for them so AMDs solution was keep the X86 and
extend it with the X64 extentions and also keeping backwards compatability.
and today its show that it was the right move for them.

So Intel copied AMD after seeing the popularity of the AMD64 despite intel
saying the market is not ready for 64bit computing and 32bit was enough. for
most people (the average user) that is true, but for others it is not.

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> All your history has very little relevance to the fact that AMD decided to
> do the 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture when Intel said it was
> stupid and there was no market for it. It was only after the AMD64 CPUs
> were released that Intel decided there was a market for this because of
> the popularity of the AMD64 and Microsoft's Windows x64.
>
>
> Intel_Fan wrote:
>> Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post but
>> this isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements. Very
>> interesting that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort to
>> imitate AMD64" especially since Intel released a 64 bit microprocessor
>> (Feb 27, 1989) two years before AMD manufactured their first processor,
>> the Am386, in 1991 (nearly three years after the Intel 386SX). I'll post
>> references for these dates if you like. AMD is an excellent company to be
>> sure and I respect their decision years ago to optimize their processors
>> to the old x86 instruction set rather than concentrate on new op codes as
>> Intel did. It was a strategy that allows those of you with AMD processors
>> to enjoy a general benefit in terms of speed today.
>>
>> Jumping off the deep end with unfounded inflammatory statements after
>> suggesting that someone else "get educated!" is not a very good method of
>> garnering credibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>You need to get educated! AMD64 is NOT aka EM64T!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort to imitate AMD64 without publicly
>>>admitting AMD64 has the brains and the balls to do something Intel was
>>>too chicken and too stupid to even think of on their own!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>
>>>>AMD64 (aka EM64T) provides direct hardware support for 16/32-bit user
>>>>mode under a 64-bit OS, but it has a hard requirement for the OS to be
>>>>fully 64-bit. Since drivers are part of the OS, they must be 64-bit as
>>>>well.
>>>>
>>>>Now, I suppose someone truly perverse could find a way to translate
>>>>32-bit drivers into 64-bit ones, or provide some sort of emulation, but
>>>>drivers are by their very nature extremely unportable and expect to have
>>>>access to all sorts of things that emulation or translation can't
>>>>feasibly take into account. In short, it's a _lot_ simpler for the HW
>>>>vendors to port their drivers (even when multiplied by the thousands of
>>>>drivers out there) than it is for MS to support 32-bit drivers on an x64
>>>>system.

>>
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stephen Sprunk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
"Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uLaZ%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post
> but this isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements.
> Very interesting that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort
> to imitate AMD64" especially since Intel released a 64 bit
> microprocessor (Feb 27, 1989) two years before AMD manufactured
> their first processor, the Am386, in 1991 (nearly three years after
> the Intel 386SX).


Sure, Intel and lots of other companies released 64-bit chips earlier,
but AMD was the first to come up with viable 64-bit extensions to the
x86 ISA. Being the first to do something is a very different thing from
being the first to make money at it; Intel is good at the former and AMD
is good at the latter.

Intel's EM64T aka IA-32e aka CT was a blatant copy of AMD64, down to
having the same spelling mistakes and typos that were in an earlier
revision of AMD's spec. Not that I mind them copying since it makes for
a unified software market, but at least they could admit it instead of
pretending they came up with _the same ISA_ independently -- shortly
after AMD's K8 had started out-selling Itanic, no less.

There are, of course, minor differences between AMD64 and EM64T, since
Intel's plagiarists haven't yet copyied the more recent AMD specs, but
there is a common subset and that is what WinXP x64 seems to be compiled
for. Kudos to MS for getting this right.

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
I'm confused. When was the last time AMD made a profit on anything? or at
least enough to recognise as a profit.


"Stephen Sprunk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:etK7Q9%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uLaZ%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post
>> but this isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements.
>> Very interesting that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort
>> to imitate AMD64" especially since Intel released a 64 bit
>> microprocessor (Feb 27, 1989) two years before AMD manufactured
>> their first processor, the Am386, in 1991 (nearly three years after
>> the Intel 386SX).

>
> Sure, Intel and lots of other companies released 64-bit chips earlier,
> but AMD was the first to come up with viable 64-bit extensions to the
> x86 ISA. Being the first to do something is a very different thing from
> being the first to make money at it; Intel is good at the former and AMD
> is good at the latter.
>
> Intel's EM64T aka IA-32e aka CT was a blatant copy of AMD64, down to
> having the same spelling mistakes and typos that were in an earlier
> revision of AMD's spec. Not that I mind them copying since it makes for
> a unified software market, but at least they could admit it instead of
> pretending they came up with _the same ISA_ independently -- shortly
> after AMD's K8 had started out-selling Itanic, no less.
>
> There are, of course, minor differences between AMD64 and EM64T, since
> Intel's plagiarists haven't yet copyied the more recent AMD specs, but
> there is a common subset and that is what WinXP x64 seems to be compiled
> for. Kudos to MS for getting this right.
>
> 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
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Intel_Fan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
Thanks, but I suspect if Intel "copied" anything, it may have been a
specification of op codes used by xp64 (possibly written by MS). That would
explain the similarities in the document you mention. I'd like to take a
look at this if you happen to have a link to it please.
You may very well be correct in stating that AMD was first with 64 bit
extensions to the x86 architecture. Intel left the x86 behind 10 years ago
when they launched the Pentium (as I understand it, that is the reason for
the name change instead of calling it a 586) so I wouldn't have expected
them to do it. Where Intel screwed up was insisting on a hefty licensing fee
and a 15yr NDA to get the new instructions. The Pentium is backward
compatible and emulates the x86 so nobody bought into it and to this day,
most software is still written for an ancient processor. There is an amazing
amount of untapped horsepower under the hood of a P4. I suspect there are
similarly unutilized functions in the AMD processors as well. It is truly
unfortunate that most folks will never know just how much they are missing.

"Stephen Sprunk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:etK7Q9%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uLaZ%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post
> > but this isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements.
> > Very interesting that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort
> > to imitate AMD64" especially since Intel released a 64 bit
> > microprocessor (Feb 27, 1989) two years before AMD manufactured
> > their first processor, the Am386, in 1991 (nearly three years after
> > the Intel 386SX).

>
> Sure, Intel and lots of other companies released 64-bit chips earlier,
> but AMD was the first to come up with viable 64-bit extensions to the
> x86 ISA. Being the first to do something is a very different thing from
> being the first to make money at it; Intel is good at the former and AMD
> is good at the latter.
>
> Intel's EM64T aka IA-32e aka CT was a blatant copy of AMD64, down to
> having the same spelling mistakes and typos that were in an earlier
> revision of AMD's spec. Not that I mind them copying since it makes for
> a unified software market, but at least they could admit it instead of
> pretending they came up with _the same ISA_ independently -- shortly
> after AMD's K8 had started out-selling Itanic, no less.
>
> There are, of course, minor differences between AMD64 and EM64T, since
> Intel's plagiarists haven't yet copyied the more recent AMD specs, but
> there is a common subset and that is what WinXP x64 seems to be compiled
> for. Kudos to MS for getting this right.
>
> 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
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
The name change was because they couldn't copyright the numeric
designations, which many knock-offs were using, so they adopted a name they
could copyright. Had nothing to do with architecture.

"Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eRHNUg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, but I suspect if Intel "copied" anything, it may have been a
> specification of op codes used by xp64 (possibly written by MS). That
> would
> explain the similarities in the document you mention. I'd like to take a
> look at this if you happen to have a link to it please.
> You may very well be correct in stating that AMD was first with 64 bit
> extensions to the x86 architecture. Intel left the x86 behind 10 years ago
> when they launched the Pentium (as I understand it, that is the reason for
> the name change instead of calling it a 586) so I wouldn't have expected
> them to do it. Where Intel screwed up was insisting on a hefty licensing
> fee
> and a 15yr NDA to get the new instructions. The Pentium is backward
> compatible and emulates the x86 so nobody bought into it and to this day,
> most software is still written for an ancient processor. There is an
> amazing
> amount of untapped horsepower under the hood of a P4. I suspect there are
> similarly unutilized functions in the AMD processors as well. It is truly
> unfortunate that most folks will never know just how much they are
> missing.
>
> "Stephen Sprunk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:etK7Q9%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:uLaZ%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post
>> > but this isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements.
>> > Very interesting that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort
>> > to imitate AMD64" especially since Intel released a 64 bit
>> > microprocessor (Feb 27, 1989) two years before AMD manufactured
>> > their first processor, the Am386, in 1991 (nearly three years after
>> > the Intel 386SX).

>>
>> Sure, Intel and lots of other companies released 64-bit chips earlier,
>> but AMD was the first to come up with viable 64-bit extensions to the
>> x86 ISA. Being the first to do something is a very different thing from
>> being the first to make money at it; Intel is good at the former and AMD
>> is good at the latter.
>>
>> Intel's EM64T aka IA-32e aka CT was a blatant copy of AMD64, down to
>> having the same spelling mistakes and typos that were in an earlier
>> revision of AMD's spec. Not that I mind them copying since it makes for
>> a unified software market, but at least they could admit it instead of
>> pretending they came up with _the same ISA_ independently -- shortly
>> after AMD's K8 had started out-selling Itanic, no less.
>>
>> There are, of course, minor differences between AMD64 and EM64T, since
>> Intel's plagiarists haven't yet copyied the more recent AMD specs, but
>> there is a common subset and that is what WinXP x64 seems to be compiled
>> for. Kudos to MS for getting this right.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Sprunk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
"Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eRHNUg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, but I suspect if Intel "copied" anything, it may have been a
> specification of op codes used by xp64 (possibly written by MS).
> That would explain the similarities in the document you mention. I'd
> like to take a look at this if you happen to have a link to it please.


You're getting things completely out of order.

MS does not produce ISA specs; they take the specs they're given by CPU
vendors and decide if/when they will port Windows to that ISA. AMD came
up with the AMD64 spec, published it, built CPUs around it, and helped
the Linux and BSD communities port their OSes. They also revised the
spec a few times to correct errors. Later, MS decided that AMD64 was
going to be a large market after all and started porting Windows.

_After_ that news was public, Intel suddenly embraced the idea and
published their "IA-32e" specification (later renamed EM64T) which
contained the same typos, errors, etc. that AMD's original documents
showed. MS then renamed their port "x64", made changes so it would run
on AMD's older spec that Intel plagiarized (easy to do) just as well as
the revised specs, and delayed launch until Intel's chips were ready for
market -- a couple years after AMD64 processors started shipping.

> You may very well be correct in stating that AMD was first with 64
> bit extensions to the x86 architecture. Intel left the x86 behind 10
> years ago when they launched the Pentium (as I understand it, that
> is the reason for the name change instead of calling it a 586) so I
> wouldn't have expected them to do it.


The various Pentium processors follow the x86 (aka IA-32) ISA. The
reason Intel didn't use the name "586" is because they couldn't
trademark a number, and they'd been suffering from other vendors (like
Cyrix and AMD) calling their processors "486". It's all about branding
and has nothing to do with the technology inside.

> Where Intel screwed up was insisting on a hefty licensing fee
> and a 15yr NDA to get the new instructions. The Pentium is
> backward compatible and emulates the x86 so nobody bought into
> it and to this day,


No, the Pentium _is_ an x86 processor because that's its native ISA.
That newer models happen to break down x86 instructions into a simpler
form internally is irrelevant -- every modern x86 chip does that
regardless of vendor. That advance (pioneered by NexGen, IIRC, not
Intel) is why RISC never beat out x86 -- modern x86 chips are actually
RISC cores with a CISC decoder slapped on the front.

Itanic, OTOH, was a complete redesign with a new native ISA (IA-64) and
downright pathetic emulation of x86. That project fell flat on its
face, and Intel is keeping it on life support mainly because they can't
admit they made _yet another_ mistake like the iAPX432 or i860 (or was
that i960?).

> most software is still written for an ancient processor.


Hardly. You can't even run modern x86 code on a 486 or original Pentium
because so much has been added to the ISA since then. It's a constantly
moving target.

> There is an amazing amount of untapped horsepower under the hood
> of a P4. I suspect there are similarly unutilized functions in the AMD
> processors as well. It is truly unfortunate that most folks will never
> know just how much they are missing.


Modern code takes advantage of the modern CPUs; it's RAM latency and bad
compilers that are keeping performance down -- the ISA isn't a limiting
factor today for general-purpose computers.

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Intel_Fan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
Thanks for the corrections. I'm not so sure about "can't even run modern x86
code on a 486 or original Pentium" but I do appreciate your insight on this
subject. I agree that compilers are a shortcoming. I use the Intel IPP as
much as possible in my projects. It's an easy way to take advantage of the
SIMD capabilities. It really is amazing what a difference it makes.
It's very refreshing to get this kind of dialog without it feeling like a
shouting match. Thanks again.

"Stephen Sprunk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Intel_Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:eRHNUg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks, but I suspect if Intel "copied" anything, it may have been a
>> specification of op codes used by xp64 (possibly written by MS).
>> That would explain the similarities in the document you mention. I'd
>> like to take a look at this if you happen to have a link to it please.

>
> You're getting things completely out of order.
>
> MS does not produce ISA specs; they take the specs they're given by CPU
> vendors and decide if/when they will port Windows to that ISA. AMD came
> up with the AMD64 spec, published it, built CPUs around it, and helped
> the Linux and BSD communities port their OSes. They also revised the
> spec a few times to correct errors. Later, MS decided that AMD64 was
> going to be a large market after all and started porting Windows.
>
> _After_ that news was public, Intel suddenly embraced the idea and
> published their "IA-32e" specification (later renamed EM64T) which
> contained the same typos, errors, etc. that AMD's original documents
> showed. MS then renamed their port "x64", made changes so it would run
> on AMD's older spec that Intel plagiarized (easy to do) just as well as
> the revised specs, and delayed launch until Intel's chips were ready for
> market -- a couple years after AMD64 processors started shipping.
>
>> You may very well be correct in stating that AMD was first with 64
>> bit extensions to the x86 architecture. Intel left the x86 behind 10
>> years ago when they launched the Pentium (as I understand it, that
>> is the reason for the name change instead of calling it a 586) so I
>> wouldn't have expected them to do it.

>
> The various Pentium processors follow the x86 (aka IA-32) ISA. The
> reason Intel didn't use the name "586" is because they couldn't
> trademark a number, and they'd been suffering from other vendors (like
> Cyrix and AMD) calling their processors "486". It's all about branding
> and has nothing to do with the technology inside.
>
>> Where Intel screwed up was insisting on a hefty licensing fee
>> and a 15yr NDA to get the new instructions. The Pentium is
>> backward compatible and emulates the x86 so nobody bought into
>> it and to this day,

>
> No, the Pentium _is_ an x86 processor because that's its native ISA.
> That newer models happen to break down x86 instructions into a simpler
> form internally is irrelevant -- every modern x86 chip does that
> regardless of vendor. That advance (pioneered by NexGen, IIRC, not
> Intel) is why RISC never beat out x86 -- modern x86 chips are actually
> RISC cores with a CISC decoder slapped on the front.
>
> Itanic, OTOH, was a complete redesign with a new native ISA (IA-64) and
> downright pathetic emulation of x86. That project fell flat on its
> face, and Intel is keeping it on life support mainly because they can't
> admit they made _yet another_ mistake like the iAPX432 or i860 (or was
> that i960?).
>
>> most software is still written for an ancient processor.

>
> Hardly. You can't even run modern x86 code on a 486 or original Pentium
> because so much has been added to the ISA since then. It's a constantly
> moving target.
>
>> There is an amazing amount of untapped horsepower under the hood
>> of a P4. I suspect there are similarly unutilized functions in the AMD
>> processors as well. It is truly unfortunate that most folks will never
>> know just how much they are missing.

>
> Modern code takes advantage of the modern CPUs; it's RAM latency and bad
> compilers that are keeping performance down -- the ISA isn't a limiting
> factor today for general-purpose computers.
>
> 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
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?Sm9u?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2005
Interesting responses to this question - you all seem to say go to the
hardware vendor. Well, what if the hardware vendor is MICROSOFT.

I have a Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and the intellipoint
software does not load - as it's not 64 bit.

So come on Microsoft, support your OWN hardware.
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?R2lCQg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2005
So harsh, but ohhh so very true Rick,
i upgraded my system to x64, but i admited defeat after a month!
Bob i think thats somthing you should do as well,
i could barely get anything working on my x64 system but i was foolish and
thought i was ready, but my job calls for me to have a fully operational pc
so i had to down grade back to xp sp2 pro, which i admit does not work as
fast as the x64 but its a hell of a lot easier!
so take a hint!

"Rick" wrote:

> If you're a stupid as you profess to be in your post, then how the hell
> did you ever figure out how to install x64?
>
> If you think you are smarter than Microsoft, then write the necessary
> software yourself to do what you want it to do!
>
> bob wrote:
> > I am able to run 32-bit applications on my 64-bit operating system, so
> > presumably there's a translator sitting inbetween the application and the OS
> > that converts the bits to the appropriate length.
> >
> > Why can't this be done with the drivers? It doesn't need to negate the need
> > for real 64-bit drivers, but something, anything, even with limited speed or
> > functionality is better than nothing which is what I have now.
> >
> > <vent>
> > Not counting my motherboard drivers, currently I only have only 1 64-bit
> > driver (video card) available to me for all of my hardware and peripherals. I
> > upgraded to x64 because I was told it take full advantage of my processor and
> > be twice as fast, this has not been the case. I've not noticed any gains in
> > using x64, only limitations.
> >
> > I've hung in for quite a while now hoping that drivers would be available,
> > but I've now lost all hope. I can't think of a reason that anyone would use
> > x64 other than to post here and keep Microsoft informed of what hardware they
> > have that doesn't work.
> >
> > So please, Microsoft, give us something that will make our 32-bit drivers
> > work or tell Intel and AMD to stop making 64-bit processors because there's
> > not a functioning operating system available that supports them.
> > </vent>

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there any way to tell the difference between native Microsoft OS drivers from third-party? Spin Computer Support 3 11-05-2008 06:36 PM
Difference between Python CGI applications and Php applications praba kar Python 2 05-04-2005 06:49 PM
Difference between bin and obj directories and difference between project references and dll references jakk ASP .Net 4 03-22-2005 09:23 PM
difference between web applications and applicaitons Timothy V ASP .Net 1 02-07-2004 05:12 PM
Exact difference between 'const char *' and 'char *', also diff between 'const' and 'static' Santa C Programming 1 07-17-2003 02:10 PM



Advertisments