Windows XP 64-bit - based in 32-bit code?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?SnVtcHlKaW0=?=, Nov 13, 2005.

  1. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is x64 solely based on the Server 2003
    32-bit code then recompiled with a 64-bit compiler, taking no advantage and
    optimisation of a 64-bit processor?

    Or is it based on 32-bit Server 2003 code, but with critical system code
    manually re-edited to be more efficient with 64-bit processors, then
    recompiled with a 64-bit compiler?

    Thanks.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?SnVtcHlKaW0=?=, Nov 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. It is branched from Server 2003 Service Pack 1. It is native 64-bit. It's
    closest relation is Windows Server 2003 x64. You may be misunderstanding
    the ability to run 32-bit software on x64. It is done through a thin
    emulation layer called Windows on Windows64 (WOW64). It cannot run 16-bit
    software or 32-bit device drivers.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "JumpyJim" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is x64 solely based on the Server 2003
    > 32-bit code then recompiled with a 64-bit compiler, taking no advantage
    > and
    > optimisation of a 64-bit processor?
    >
    > Or is it based on 32-bit Server 2003 code, but with critical system code
    > manually re-edited to be more efficient with 64-bit processors, then
    > recompiled with a 64-bit compiler?
    >
    > Thanks.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thanks for the reply. I perhaps didn't word my question well originally. I
    meant to say that the source code for x64 is 32-bit and MS have merely
    recompiled said 32-bit source code using a 64-bit compiler. What I was trying
    to ask if the recompilation included any additional tweaks and optimisations
    to take advantage of 64-bit processors.

    Also I had thought that the codebase was based on 32-bit Windows Server 2003
    RC2 and not Server 2003 SP1. Could anyone else provide futher information?

    Thanks for all replies.




    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > It is branched from Server 2003 Service Pack 1. It is native 64-bit. It's
    > closest relation is Windows Server 2003 x64. You may be misunderstanding
    > the ability to run 32-bit software on x64. It is done through a thin
    > emulation layer called Windows on Windows64 (WOW64). It cannot run 16-bit
    > software or 32-bit device drivers.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "JumpyJim" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is x64 solely based on the Server 2003
    > > 32-bit code then recompiled with a 64-bit compiler, taking no advantage
    > > and
    > > optimisation of a 64-bit processor?
    > >
    > > Or is it based on 32-bit Server 2003 code, but with critical system code
    > > manually re-edited to be more efficient with 64-bit processors, then
    > > recompiled with a 64-bit compiler?
    > >
    > > Thanks.

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?SnVtcHlKaW0=?=, Nov 13, 2005
    #3
  4. First, it is Server 2k3 SP1. Period. Same build number, if you look at it.

    Now, as to compiling, code base, optimizations, etc. Source code is neither
    32-bit nor 64-bit. It's just source code. There are many ways to use a
    single code base to compile for different platforms, some of which do
    optimizations appropriately, and some of which do not. I saw some
    interesting blogs around 9-10 months ago that made it clear that all
    versions of Windows Server are now being compiled on x64 machines, running
    x64 Windows. And that the difference in compile time when the moved to
    compiling on x64 was an order of magnitude faster. The machines were 4 way
    Opterons, as I recall.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    JumpyJim wrote:
    > Thanks for the reply. I perhaps didn't word my question well originally.
    > I meant to say that the source code for x64 is 32-bit and MS have merely
    > recompiled said 32-bit source code using a 64-bit compiler. What I was
    > trying to ask if the recompilation included any additional tweaks and
    > optimisations to take advantage of 64-bit processors.
    >
    > Also I had thought that the codebase was based on 32-bit Windows Server
    > 2003 RC2 and not Server 2003 SP1. Could anyone else provide futher
    > information?
    >
    > Thanks for all replies.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >
    >> It is branched from Server 2003 Service Pack 1. It is native 64-bit.
    >> It's closest relation is Windows Server 2003 x64. You may be
    >> misunderstanding the ability to run 32-bit software on x64. It is done
    >> through a thin emulation layer called Windows on Windows64 (WOW64). It
    >> cannot run 16-bit software or 32-bit device drivers.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >> "JumpyJim" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is x64 solely based on the Server
    >>> 2003 32-bit code then recompiled with a 64-bit compiler, taking no
    >>> advantage and
    >>> optimisation of a 64-bit processor?
    >>>
    >>> Or is it based on 32-bit Server 2003 code, but with critical system code
    >>> manually re-edited to be more efficient with 64-bit processors, then
    >>> recompiled with a 64-bit compiler?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 13, 2005
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?SnVtcHlKaW0=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    True at the application level, generally, but at the O/S level, there is
    more involved than just using a different compiler. The routines for
    SYSWOW64 etc. require new code to be written (modified), especially for
    lower level processes.


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:usVk%...
    > First, it is Server 2k3 SP1. Period. Same build number, if you look at it.
    >
    > Now, as to compiling, code base, optimizations, etc. Source code is
    > neither 32-bit nor 64-bit. It's just source code. There are many ways to
    > use a single code base to compile for different platforms, some of which
    > do optimizations appropriately, and some of which do not. I saw some
    > interesting blogs around 9-10 months ago that made it clear that all
    > versions of Windows Server are now being compiled on x64 machines, running
    > x64 Windows. And that the difference in compile time when the moved to
    > compiling on x64 was an order of magnitude faster. The machines were 4 way
    > Opterons, as I recall.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > JumpyJim wrote:
    >> Thanks for the reply. I perhaps didn't word my question well originally.
    >> I meant to say that the source code for x64 is 32-bit and MS have merely
    >> recompiled said 32-bit source code using a 64-bit compiler. What I was
    >> trying to ask if the recompilation included any additional tweaks and
    >> optimisations to take advantage of 64-bit processors.
    >>
    >> Also I had thought that the codebase was based on 32-bit Windows Server
    >> 2003 RC2 and not Server 2003 SP1. Could anyone else provide futher
    >> information?
    >>
    >> Thanks for all replies.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >>
    >>> It is branched from Server 2003 Service Pack 1. It is native 64-bit.
    >>> It's closest relation is Windows Server 2003 x64. You may be
    >>> misunderstanding the ability to run 32-bit software on x64. It is done
    >>> through a thin emulation layer called Windows on Windows64 (WOW64). It
    >>> cannot run 16-bit software or 32-bit device drivers.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>> "JumpyJim" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is x64 solely based on the Server
    >>>> 2003 32-bit code then recompiled with a 64-bit compiler, taking no
    >>>> advantage and
    >>>> optimisation of a 64-bit processor?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or is it based on 32-bit Server 2003 code, but with critical system
    >>>> code
    >>>> manually re-edited to be more efficient with 64-bit processors, then
    >>>> recompiled with a 64-bit compiler?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks.

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Nov 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Yes, but those routines are in a single set of code -- with no special NDA
    knowledge, I would be astonished if MS maintained seperate code bases for
    each architecture. Astonished.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    John Barnes wrote:
    > True at the application level, generally, but at the O/S level, there is
    > more involved than just using a different compiler. The routines for
    > SYSWOW64 etc. require new code to be written (modified), especially for
    > lower level processes.
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:usVk%...
    >> First, it is Server 2k3 SP1. Period. Same build number, if you look at
    >> it. Now, as to compiling, code base, optimizations, etc. Source code is
    >> neither 32-bit nor 64-bit. It's just source code. There are many ways to
    >> use a single code base to compile for different platforms, some of which
    >> do optimizations appropriately, and some of which do not. I saw some
    >> interesting blogs around 9-10 months ago that made it clear that all
    >> versions of Windows Server are now being compiled on x64 machines,
    >> running x64 Windows. And that the difference in compile time when the
    >> moved to compiling on x64 was an order of magnitude faster. The machines
    >> were 4 way Opterons, as I recall.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> JumpyJim wrote:
    >>> Thanks for the reply. I perhaps didn't word my question well originally.
    >>> I meant to say that the source code for x64 is 32-bit and MS have merely
    >>> recompiled said 32-bit source code using a 64-bit compiler. What I was
    >>> trying to ask if the recompilation included any additional tweaks and
    >>> optimisations to take advantage of 64-bit processors.
    >>>
    >>> Also I had thought that the codebase was based on 32-bit Windows Server
    >>> 2003 RC2 and not Server 2003 SP1. Could anyone else provide futher
    >>> information?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for all replies.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It is branched from Server 2003 Service Pack 1. It is native 64-bit.
    >>>> It's closest relation is Windows Server 2003 x64. You may be
    >>>> misunderstanding the ability to run 32-bit software on x64. It is done
    >>>> through a thin emulation layer called Windows on Windows64 (WOW64). It
    >>>> cannot run 16-bit software or 32-bit device drivers.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>>> "JumpyJim" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is x64 solely based on the Server
    >>>>> 2003 32-bit code then recompiled with a 64-bit compiler, taking no
    >>>>> advantage and
    >>>>> optimisation of a 64-bit processor?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Or is it based on 32-bit Server 2003 code, but with critical system
    >>>>> code
    >>>>> manually re-edited to be more efficient with 64-bit processors, then
    >>>>> recompiled with a 64-bit compiler?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 13, 2005
    #6
  7. "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:eWFF5$...
    > Yes, but those routines are in a single set of code -- with no special NDA
    > knowledge, I would be astonished if MS maintained seperate code bases for
    > each architecture. Astonished.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >


    Then be astonished, as that is what it is. :)



    Wayne
     
    Wayne Wastier, Nov 14, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JohnNews
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,007
    Bernie
    Dec 5, 2003
  2. Jim

    Set based vs. IOS based

    Jim, Feb 17, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    511
    mikester
    Feb 18, 2004
  3. Murali Inguva
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    481
    Cindy Winegarden
    Dec 3, 2003
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    496
  5. =?Utf-8?B?SVQgU2Ft?=
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,978
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Mar 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page