16 Bit Application Support in WinXP x64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Guest, May 30, 2005.

  1. shilling for him now. <GRIN>

    --
    Charlie.

     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 1, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Aldo Bleeker Guest

    David,

    Just wanted to clarify the issue for the original poster about XP x64 not
    offering 16-bit support. The AMD processors are sweet little CPU's, aren't
    they? Haven't even considered an Intel for ages!

    Aldo Bleeker
     
    Aldo Bleeker, Jun 1, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Davin, comments and corrections in line

    That is not correct. The Windows 95/98/Me family still contained 16-bit
    components and still had support for 16-bit technologies and applications.
    You could even still boot to DOS under 95 etc.
    Incorrect - the 16/32 bit family that was Win95/98/Me had pretty much
    complete support for 16-bit applications and technologies - the real change
    happened in 1993 with our first truly 32-bit opertaing system release -
    Windows NT 3.where we were a complete 32-bit OS and only provided 16-bit
    support via the WoW (Windows on Windows) subsystem that was capable of
    running some 16-bit applications.
    Based on what dates ? Our development program for what eventually became
    Windows NT 3.1 began a number of years previously while we were working with
    IBM on the OS/2 operating systems. We shipped Windows 3.0 in 1990 and
    Windows NT 3.1 in 19993.
    NT 3.1 was a fully 2 years ahead of Windows 95 and was a full 32-bit OS
    (unlike Windows 95 which was not completely 32-bit)
    EM64T is a 32-bit processor with extended memory addressing hence the name.
    The technology is similar to that used in the AMD64 processors.
    They are both still executing the x86 instruction set.
    Most of this is incorrect.
    The short history of what eventually became MS-DOS is as follows (courtesy
    of PC Museum)

    1980
    April
    Tim Patterson begins writing an operating system for use with Seattle
    Computer Products' 8086-based computer.
    Seattle Computer Products decides to make their own disk operating system
    (DOS), due to delays by Digital Research in releasing a CP/M-86 operating
    system.
    August
    QDOS 0.10 (Quick and Dirty Operating System) is shipped by Seattle Computer
    Products. Even though it had been created in only two man-months, the DOS
    worked surprisingly well.
    September
    Tim Patterson shows Microsoft his 86-DOS, written for the 8086 chip.
    October
    Microsoft's Paul Allen contacts Seattle Computer Products' Tim Patterson,
    asking for the rights to sell SCP's DOS to an unnamed client (IBM).
    Microsoft pays less than US$100,000 for the right.
    December
    Seattle Computer Products renames QDOS to 86-DOS, releasing it as version
    0.3. Microsoft then bought non-exclusive rights to market 86-DOS.
    ---
    1981
    February
    MS-DOS runs for the first time on IBM's prototype microcomputer.
    July
    Microsoft buys all rights to DOS from Seattle Computer Products, and the
    name MS-DOS is adopted.
    August
    IBM announces the IBM 5150 PC Personal Computer, featuring a 4.77-MHz Intel
    8088 CPU, 64KB RAM, 40KB ROM, one 5.25-inch floppy drive, and PC-DOS 1.0
    (Microsoft's MS-DOS), for US$3000.
    ---
    1982
    May
    Microsoft releases MS-DOS 1.1 to IBM, for the IBM PC. It supports 320KB
    double-sided floppy disk drives. Microsoft also releases MS-DOS 1.25,
    similar to 1.1 but for IBM-compatible computers.
    ---
    1983
    March
    MS-DOS 2.0 for PCs is announced. It was written from scratch
    In 1975 - Bill was working with his partner John Allen producing BASIC for
    the Altair 8800. He was never an IBM employee. The development of MS-DOS
    was done by Microsoft (see above)

    Which as we have already seen was actually prceeded some years earily by a
    true 32-bit OS iin Windows NT 3.1 after a number of years of development
    unde Dave Cutler (ex-Digital Equipement Corp).
    You appear to have decided to ignore the entire Windows NT product line
    which was a true 32-bit OS.
    Which was actually Windows NT 5.0 and again the server versions had been
    around on the NT family since day one of Windows NT 3.1.
    We had had a "reliable 32-bit OS for "Professional" use fo a number of
    years - many would agree that NT4.0 Workstation was a stable platform for
    32-bit applications for many years prior to the arrival of Windows 2000.
    The Server platforms are not "based" on the desktop OS. The code base used
    to develop the entire product family is common - but in the case fo Windows
    XP (which is NT 5.1) we shipped the desktop OS before the Server family and
    thus the Server family is actually NT 5.2. Which leads to the x64 products
    where the desktop is actually "based" (to use your terms) on the NT 5.2
    (Server 2003) code base.
    You should not publish your real e-mail address in public newsgroups as it
    will be harvested by the SPAM bots.
    As regards your post - there are a significant number of factual errors in
    it. All of the information you require to correct these is in the public
    domain.
    You also have missed the entire work we have done on 32-bit operating
    systems along the NT family line which lead to the products you see today;
    as the 16/32-bit line died at Windows Me.

    --

    Regards,

    Mike
    --
    Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights

    Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
    newsgroups

     
    Mike Brannigan [MSFT], Jun 1, 2005
    #23
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    HI Davin,

    Your previous boast , er I mean post "I am an AMD Solution Provider that's
    reseller certified" , if you are 13 years old and you have 5 years experience
    in IT. Just in case no one else finds that questionable. Nice essay either
    way, now it's my turn.

    I am curious about Aldo's post , you mentioned clarifying the issue and
    pointed at the AMD processor, stirred my curiosity, do tell more?

    According to the MVP's ( Most valued Post-er's ;-p ), x64 will discontinue
    support for 16-bit apps , meaning no more 16-bit sub-system , this means
    finally people can start upgrading those old school apps.

    Certainly there are work arounds, but the main issue is will small
    businesses really need to worry about the march towards 64-bit (not likeley),
    as I'm sure any IT pro in S.A will tell you , certain companies cling to
    their prized DOS apps.

    Anyhow for your interest I'm including the lifecycle link :
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];lifecycle

    Win 98 Se Mainstream support retired : 30-Jun-2002
    Win2k Pro : 30-Jun-2005
    WINXP Pro will see extended support 2 years after the launch of it successor.

    Meaning that the standard version of XP will probably see another 4 years of
    productivity , and several decades of longevity if I know small bussinesses
    around here.

    An interesting angle, is AMD still manufacturing 32 bit processors ? I've
    covered the software life-span , but hardware constraints might necessitate a
    deeper look into migration.

    One last throw into the the void, how many applications are currently making
    use of the advantages 64-bit OS's and processors have to offer ? (Rhetorical
    question)
     
    Guest, Jun 1, 2005
    #24
  5. I love the Athlon 64s. Extremely fast. I soon will be getting a new computer
    with an athlon 64 (possibly the 3400+ model...).There is a review between
    Intel and AMD Processors for speed differences in Tom's Hardware Guide. It
    says that after overclocking the 3.6 GHz processor up to 5.2 GHz, it only
    just beat the Athlon 64 FX 55!! AMD is the performance king of today! I'm
    not sure of the url for the review but search up for it in Google and you
    will find something.

    Regards,
    Davin Eastley

    ---------
    www.davineastley.tk
    Forums Home

     
    Davin Eastley, Jun 1, 2005
    #25
  6. Savage,

    Yes. AMD have Sempron processors in both 32-bit and 64-bit (dependant on the
    socket). The AMD Sempron family is the value version of the Athlon XP,
    however the Athlon XPs have been discontinued early January this year.

    I hope this helps.

    Regards,
    Davin Eastley
     
    Davin Eastley, Jun 1, 2005
    #26
  7. Mike,

    Thank you for that valuable information. I hadn't checked my information; I
    should have gone to my Upgrading and Repairing PCs book (15th edition) which
    covers a lot about operating systems. I hadn't noticed missing out WinNT.
    Anyway, your post provided some insight into the "real" history of the
    Windows Platform. Is it correct that after Windows 98, support for DOS was
    not in Windows anymore? I hadn't known about WinNT 3.0 before. Visual Basic
    3.0 came out in 1993 also. Was this version of Visual Basic designed to run
    on NT 3.0? Also, I though Bill Gates' business partner was Paul Allen.
    Anyway, that information should be useful to everyone wanting to know. I
    wrote the article very briefly and I hadn't checked any material to prove
    that I was right. I already knew that XP and 2000 was based on NT but didn't
    know it was NT 5.2. I haven't done much to do with the NT Operating System
    myself. Did NT 4.0 come out in 1997? Considering that NT 3.0 came out, is
    Win95 only the first "home use" OS then? Isn't it NT has always been for
    servers or is there home versions as well? I am sure this information will
    help anyone interested in the newsgroups.

    Regards,
    Davin Eastley

    ----------
    www.davineastley.tk
    Forums Home

     
    Davin Eastley, Jun 1, 2005
    #27
  8. Savage,

    There are games such as FarCry that take advantage of the 64-bit technology
    :: www.farcry-thegame.com. A patch for 64-bit support was recently released
    (this month). Also, a 64-bit edition of Unreal Tournament is currently in
    development (if released already; I'm not sure). Also, 64 bit technology can
    be used for intensive memory applications and can speed things up
    considerably, depending on what the task-at-hand is. Yes. I have 5 years
    experience of IT :: I am currently 13 and started when I was 7 years old.
    In the beginning of next year, it will be 6 years ;-). Some businesses are
    starting to implement Intel EM64T processors for Workstations and Servers
    into their operations. There are many, many businesses that use AMD Opteron
    processors though, and they are selling higher numbers than the Pentium 4s
    and Xeons at the moment.The AMD Opteron processors are for servers and
    workstations. It is mainly businesses that use these processors however the
    AMD Athlon 64 is made for home use and I can say they are extremely fast!
    Very good for media, videos and playing games. It gives you an option to
    upgrade to dual core if you have a socket 939 based Athlon 64
    ;-). The dual core 64-bit processors from AMD have only just came out
    recently :: AMD Athlon 64 X2. Intel is only just working on dual core
    processors due to the strong competition from AMD. Paul Ottelini (CEO, Intel
    since May 2005) had said that AMD had a technically superior offering to
    their own! It is very surprising Mr. Ottelini is commending AMD and is
    favouring their products over Intel's. I hope this information is valuable
    to you and many others. Many people are already migrating to 64-bit and
    considering the recent release of Windows XP x64, many people are migrating.
    It won't take long for software development companies to innovate new
    products for the 64-bit architecture and platform. It took a long time for
    Microsoft to develop an OS for the transition of 16-bit to 32-bit however it
    isn't going to take very long for the migration to 64-bit due to the
    advancements in technology. See Mike Brannington's reply to my post under
    "16 bit support in Windows XP x64". Things are expected to move quickly. We
    are at the beginning of a new revolution in IT. Get ready...

    Regards,
    Davin Eastley

    ---------
    www.davineastley.tk
    Forums Home
     
    Davin Eastley, Jun 1, 2005
    #28
  9. Guest

    Rune Moberg Guest

    NT 3.1. It was a lovely product, I ran it on a 486-33 w/16MB memory. NT 3.5
    and 3.51 were great improvements btw. ;)
    Incidentally, the NT 5.0 beta was renamed "Windows 2000" a year or so prior
    to release. I like to think that the NT team prefer the NT moniker.
    NT4 = 1996.

    If you want to learn more about the OS, buy one of Mark Russinovich's (and
    David Solomon's) books: "Inside Windows 2000" (probably up to 2003 now).
    Win95 had several goals:

    - Run on less hardware (target was 386-33 w/4MB memory and run as well as
    Win 3.11)
    - Provide backward compatibility with 16-bit device drivers (!)
    - And also be able to run the next generation of Windows software (Win32)

    Oh, and Win 3.11 served as a testrun for some of the features that were to
    turn up in Chicago (Win95). The driver model had already started turning
    32-bit and the add-on known as "Win32s" was available to provide some
    support for simple Win32 applications.

    Several important features were missing and are even today causing problems.
    (E.g. Borland's development tools haven't bothered implementing Unicode
    support since Win9x/ME never supported Unicode -- and many people still use
    Win9x, strange as that may seem)
     
    Rune Moberg, Jun 1, 2005
    #29
  10. Windows Millenium Edition (Me) still had great support for 16-bit
    applications but we were running down the ability to boot nativly to MD-DOS.
    Not Windows NT 3.0 Windows NT 3.1
    VB 3.0 was really a 16-bit dev platform. You could run and write
    applications on NT 3.1 - due to Wow (running them as 16-bit) but really
    VB4.0 (in its 32-bit Edition) was the better platform for VB development as
    it was to target the new Windows 95 OS. (You could also deploy your apps on
    NT 3.51 if you coded them properly).
    Sorry, yes - typo.
    No - as I said 2000 = NT 5.0, XP = NT 5.1 and Server 2003 = NT 5.2
    No 1996.

    Brief history of NT (up to Windows 2000)

    a.. 1988: Microsoft formed what would become the development team for
    Windows NT, with the goal of developing a thoroughly modern, fully 32-bit,
    robust, multipurpose operating system.


    a.. August 1991: At the Microsoft Windows Developers Conference, Microsoft
    demonstrated its high-end, scaled implementation of Windows, with the same
    user interface and programming model, and with the ability to run all
    applications that had been generated for the mainstream versions. This
    version, Windows NT, offered the advanced operating system features needed
    for mission-critical applications, high-performance servers, advanced
    workstations and client/server computing.


    a.. July 1993: Microsoft released Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT Advanced
    Server 3.1. They broke new ground in operating system power, performance and
    reliability with a range of features: micro-kernel architecture, pre-emptive
    multitasking scheduler, x86/MIPS support (and, shortly after introduction,
    Alpha processor support), support for the Win32® API, support for DOS,
    16-bit versions of Windows, OS2 and POSIX applications, domain server
    security, file and print services, and Windows NT File System (NTFS).


    a.. September 1994: Windows NT Workstation 3.5 and Windows NT Server 3.5,
    code-named "Daytona," were introduced. These versions built on the
    ruggedness and stability of version 3.1 to greatly enhance speed, reduce
    size and provide greater connectivity to other systems, particularly Novell
    NetWare and UNIX environments. Both versions included accessibility features
    for users with limited dexterity or hearing impairments.


    a.. June 1995: Less than a year later, Microsoft announced Windows NT 3.51.
    Windows NT Server now included a tool to help customers manage Client Access
    Licenses for Microsoft BackOffice® family products and a utility that
    enabled over-the-network installation of Windows 95. Windows NT Workstation
    provided support for Windows 95-compatible applications, popular fax
    software, a replaceable WinLogon screen, and additional devices including
    PCMCIA.


    a.. July 1996: Microsoft released Windows NT Workstation 4.0 and Windows NT
    Server 4.0. Windows NT Server 4.0 brought ease of use and management, higher
    network throughput, and a complete set of tools for developing and managing
    intranets. Windows NT Server 4.0 included Microsoft Internet Information
    Server version 2.0 and the Microsoft FrontPage® Web site creation and
    management tool version 1.1. The Windows NT Workstation release included the
    popular Windows 95 user interface and built-in networking support, providing
    secure, easy access to the Internet and corporate intranets.


    a.. Oct. 21, 1998: Microsoft releases Service Pack 4.0 for Windows NT
    Workstation 4.0 and Windows NT Server 4.0. Since the original introduction
    of Windows NT 4.0, the product has evolved through four service packs and
    one option pack, adding and integrating public-key and certificate authority
    functionality, smart card support, improved SMP scalability, clustering,
    COM, reliable synchronous and queued transaction support, streaming media
    features, and many Web-relevant browser and server technologies.


    a.. Oct. 27, 1998: Microsoft announces that Windows NT will be known as
    "Windows" with the next major version being called "Windows 2000." The move
    reflects the marketplace momentum driving Windows NT-based technology to
    become the mainstream Windows-based technology for millions of customers
    worldwide. The new naming system is also designed to make it easier for
    consumers and businesses to choose the right Windows operating system
    products for their needs.

    Initial marketing had NT 3.1/3.5 and 3.51 targeted as Workstation class
    operating systems. Windows 95 was for both the corporate desktop and the
    home user. The market then looked at NT and at its stability and security
    that was way beyond the Windows 9x platform and began to adopt it on the
    corporate desktop - particularly with NT 4.0, so the Win 95/98 and Me were
    beginning to be more of a home user OS (the 9x products however for a long
    time were still on laptops due to certain features they possessed that were
    not in the NT family at those times)
    No - NT always had server versions and also workstation versions for high
    performance desktops that required maximum stability and security. (that the
    Win9x products could not offer) - they also excelled in the networked
    environment again from a security and manageability perspective.

    Finally with the XP products we have a Windows NT kernel OS for all the
    Home, Professional/Corporate, Laptop (incl Tablet) devices and the Server
    2003 OS for the Server family (Web, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter)


    --

    Regards,

    Mike
    --
    Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights

    Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
    newsgroups

     
    Mike Brannigan [MSFT], Jun 1, 2005
    #30
  11. Thanks for that, Mike. That helps.

    Regards,
    Davin Eastley

    ----------
    www.davineastley.tk
    Forums Home

     
    Davin Eastley, Jun 1, 2005
    #31
  12. Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
    -snip
    -snip


    Mike, wasn't there a project originally known as DOS 5.0 that was supposed
    to be 32 bit? :)


    Wayne
     
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 1, 2005
    #32
  13. I have a desktop machine with an A64 3000+. Absolutely brilliant,
    especially now that it has x64 installed.

    Can't wait to get the new dual-core X2.

    I need a new laptop really, but I'm trying to eke the present one out
    until I can get one with an A64 X2 in it.
     
    Steve Foster [SBS MVP], Jun 1, 2005
    #33

  14. The cheapest X2 will cost 550$, I'm afraid I'll wait a bit :)
     
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 1, 2005
    #34
  15. Guest

    NNBXX Guest

    Or you can switch to Intel, LOL !!!

    Regards,

    Jean-Baptiste
     
    NNBXX, Jun 1, 2005
    #35
  16. Why would anyone want to do that? Intel's dual offering will cost MORE than
    AMD's. :)
     
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 1, 2005
    #36
  17. Ok, maybe not more .. LOL

    "Asked if AMD's chips might be too expensive for system integrators,
    especially compared to the slightly lower prices of dual-core Intel chips,
    Richard said Intel's chips require a new chipset and additional cooling. As
    a result, the overall price difference between the companies won't be as
    great as the difference in chip pricing, he said. "

    quoted from:
    http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=11714&Page=1&pagePos=1


    Wayne
     
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 1, 2005
    #37
  18. Guest

    NNBXX Guest

    Hi Wayne,

    Nope, Intel dual offering actually costs much LESS than AMD's :))

    Regards,

    Jean-Baptiste
     
    NNBXX, Jun 1, 2005
    #38
  19. After you figure in new chipset, (which means new mobo) more cooling, the
    diff is not that much.
     
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 1, 2005
    #39
  20. Guest

    NNBXX Guest

    You're right.

    The whole platform has to be taken into account, and not the processor alone
    :)

    Regards,

    Jean-Baptiste
     
    NNBXX, Jun 1, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.