Author: Gregor Overney
Date: 23:09:12 09/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2003 at 18:03:22, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On September 25, 2003 at 17:03:13, Tim Foden wrote: > >>On September 25, 2003 at 13:16:30, Gregor Overney wrote: >> >>>This is not exactly an accurate description. I recommend reading the technical >>>documents on AMD's web site. The statement >>> >>>"And Windows didn't become a pure >>>32-bit OS until Microsoft launched XP in 2001." >>> >>>is just plain wrong. Windows NT 3.1 announced in March 1994. >>> >>>Gregor >> >>AFAIK XP lost the last remnant of DOS 16 bit compatibility (using the 16 bit DOS >>subsystem). NT 3.1, NT 4, and Win2K all still had it. >> >>Also, I'm not sure whether you can run 16 bit windows progs on XP, but you sure >>can on Win2K. >> >>I think this is what the article probably means. >> >>I agree though, that although this is probably what is meant, it is really >>rubbish, and shouldn't have been said. :) >> >>Cheers, Tim. > >Read it again carefully, it is as clear as crystal water :-) >http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112603,00.asp Thank you for the reference. - What do you think about Windows NT 3.1? Do you think it was a 32-bit OS or not? - If you are not sure, I recommend William Stallings book "Operating Systems, Internals and Design Principles" published by Prentice-Hall. Gregor
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.