1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

32-bit XP compatibility mode in 64-bit Windows7

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Cameo, Jun 16, 2010.

  1. Cameo

    Cameo Flightless Bird

    I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I
    wonder if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in
    64-bit Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting
    there beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.
     
  2. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    Cameo wrote:
    > I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    > version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    > programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I
    > wonder if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in
    > 64-bit Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting
    > there beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.


    If you update to Windows 7 Pro, you can also download the virtual XP.

    --
    Alias
     
  3. KCB

    KCB Flightless Bird

    "Cameo" <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:hvbnkm$ere$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    > I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate version
    > just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some programs that
    > cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I wonder if somebody
    > here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in 64-bit Windows7 "Xp
    > compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting there beside upgrading
    > to Ultimate, of course.


    I don't think you need to upgrade for simple compatibility modes for any
    Windows OS, back to Win95.
    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows

    Do you mean XP mode on Windows Virtual PC? This is like having an XP
    computer built-in to Windows 7.
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
     
  4. bettablue

    bettablue Flightless Bird

    "KCB" <bcgc_qc@hootmail.com> wrote in message
    news:hvc0c7$bgn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >
    > "Cameo" <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:hvbnkm$ere$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >> I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    >> version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    >> programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I wonder
    >> if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in 64-bit
    >> Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting there
    >> beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.

    >
    > I don't think you need to upgrade for simple compatibility modes for any
    > Windows OS, back to Win95.
    > http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows
    >
    > Do you mean XP mode on Windows Virtual PC? This is like having an XP
    > computer built-in to Windows 7.
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
    >
    >
    >


    If you are talking about Windows XP mode, you don't need Windows 7 Ultimate.
    The minimum you will need though is Windows 7 Professional. By running in
    XP mode you are not really running Windows XP over Windows 7, but you will
    be running your older programs as though they were on XP. The instructions
    are very easy and all it takes is to first, make sure you meet the minimum
    system requirements, then download the Virtual PC and finally, XP mode
    itself. Hope this helps.

    You can find a lot more about Windows XP mode here:

    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode

    You can download Windows XP mode here:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx
     
  5. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 6/16/2010 9:52 PM, bettablue wrote:
    > "KCB"<bcgc_qc@hootmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:hvc0c7$bgn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>
    >> "Cameo"<cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:hvbnkm$ere$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>> I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    >>> version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    >>> programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I wonder
    >>> if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in 64-bit
    >>> Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting there
    >>> beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.

    >>
    >> I don't think you need to upgrade for simple compatibility modes for any
    >> Windows OS, back to Win95.
    >> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows
    >>
    >> Do you mean XP mode on Windows Virtual PC? This is like having an XP
    >> computer built-in to Windows 7.
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > If you are talking about Windows XP mode, you don't need Windows 7 Ultimate.
    > The minimum you will need though is Windows 7 Professional. By running in
    > XP mode you are not really running Windows XP over Windows 7,...


    WRONG! You are running an actual, activated copy of XP Pro SP3 in a
    virtual computer inside of Windows 7.

    but you will
    > be running your older programs as though they were on XP.


    They are actually running in a real version of XP Pro SP3 OS.

    The instructions
    > are very easy and all it takes is to first, make sure you meet the minimum
    > system requirements, then download the Virtual PC and finally, XP mode
    > itself.


    Downloading "XP Mode" is actually dl'ing a free, activated copy, of XP
    Pro SP3.
    I hope this helps to clear up this much misunderstood concept of XP
    Virtual/Mode.

    Hope this helps.
    >
    > You can find a lot more about Windows XP mode here:
    >
    > http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode
    >
    > You can download Windows XP mode here:
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx
    >
    >
     
  6. Cameo

    Cameo Flightless Bird

    "Frank" <fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:
    > On 6/16/2010 9:52 PM, bettablue wrote:
    >> "KCB"<bcgc_qc@hootmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:hvc0c7$bgn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Cameo"<cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    >>> news:hvbnkm$ere$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>>> I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    >>>> version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    >>>> programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I
    >>>> wonder
    >>>> if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in
    >>>> 64-bit
    >>>> Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting
    >>>> there
    >>>> beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.
    >>>
    >>> I don't think you need to upgrade for simple compatibility modes for
    >>> any
    >>> Windows OS, back to Win95.
    >>> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows
    >>>
    >>> Do you mean XP mode on Windows Virtual PC? This is like having an
    >>> XP
    >>> computer built-in to Windows 7.
    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you are talking about Windows XP mode, you don't need Windows 7
    >> Ultimate.
    >> The minimum you will need though is Windows 7 Professional. By
    >> running in
    >> XP mode you are not really running Windows XP over Windows 7,...

    >
    > WRONG! You are running an actual, activated copy of XP Pro SP3 in a
    > virtual computer inside of Windows 7.
    >
    > but you will
    >> be running your older programs as though they were on XP.

    >
    > They are actually running in a real version of XP Pro SP3 OS.
    >
    > The instructions
    >> are very easy and all it takes is to first, make sure you meet the
    >> minimum
    >> system requirements, then download the Virtual PC and finally, XP
    >> mode
    >> itself.

    >
    > Downloading "XP Mode" is actually dl'ing a free, activated copy, of XP
    > Pro SP3.
    > I hope this helps to clear up this much misunderstood concept of XP
    > Virtual/Mode.
    >
    > Hope this helps.


    Yes, it helps but I still wonder if this is possible when the Windows 7
    is 64-bit and I want to run 32-bit XP in it. None of you addressed this
    question. As to getting the Ultimate version, I was just considering it
    because of its HD encryption capability.
     
  7. Bob Hatch

    Bob Hatch Flightless Bird

    On 6/17/2010 11:24 AM, Cameo wrote:
    > "Frank" <fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:
    >> On 6/16/2010 9:52 PM, bettablue wrote:
    >>> "KCB"<bcgc_qc@hootmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:hvc0c7$bgn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Cameo"<cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hvbnkm$ere$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>>>> I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    >>>>> version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    >>>>> programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I
    >>>>> wonder
    >>>>> if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in 64-bit
    >>>>> Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting there
    >>>>> beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't think you need to upgrade for simple compatibility modes for
    >>>> any
    >>>> Windows OS, back to Win95.
    >>>> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you mean XP mode on Windows Virtual PC? This is like having an XP
    >>>> computer built-in to Windows 7.
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> If you are talking about Windows XP mode, you don't need Windows 7
    >>> Ultimate.
    >>> The minimum you will need though is Windows 7 Professional. By
    >>> running in
    >>> XP mode you are not really running Windows XP over Windows 7,...

    >>
    >> WRONG! You are running an actual, activated copy of XP Pro SP3 in a
    >> virtual computer inside of Windows 7.
    >>
    >> but you will
    >>> be running your older programs as though they were on XP.

    >>
    >> They are actually running in a real version of XP Pro SP3 OS.
    >>
    >> The instructions
    >>> are very easy and all it takes is to first, make sure you meet the
    >>> minimum
    >>> system requirements, then download the Virtual PC and finally, XP mode
    >>> itself.

    >>
    >> Downloading "XP Mode" is actually dl'ing a free, activated copy, of XP
    >> Pro SP3.
    >> I hope this helps to clear up this much misunderstood concept of XP
    >> Virtual/Mode.
    >>
    >> Hope this helps.

    >
    > Yes, it helps but I still wonder if this is possible when the Windows 7
    > is 64-bit and I want to run 32-bit XP in it. None of you addressed this
    > question. As to getting the Ultimate version, I was just considering it
    > because of its HD encryption capability.


    I run XP mode in my Win 7 Pro. I've installed a couple of programs to
    test them for friends and they work. Will yours work, I dunno.

    What programs are you trying to run?

    --
    "Never argue with an idiot, they will knock you
    down to their level and beat you with experience."
    Unknown

    http://www.bobhatch.com
    http://www.tdsrvresort.com
     
  8. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 6/17/2010 11:24 AM, Cameo wrote:
    > "Frank" <fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:
    >> On 6/16/2010 9:52 PM, bettablue wrote:
    >>> "KCB"<bcgc_qc@hootmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:hvc0c7$bgn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Cameo"<cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hvbnkm$ere$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    >>>>> I'm thinking upgrading my 64-bit Win7 Home Premium to the Ultimate
    >>>>> version just so I could use the XP compatibility mode to run some
    >>>>> programs that cannot run on Win7, especially not in 64-bit mode. I
    >>>>> wonder
    >>>>> if somebody here has experience with running 32-bit XP apps in 64-bit
    >>>>> Windows7 "Xp compatibility" mode and what is involved in getting there
    >>>>> beside upgrading to Ultimate, of course.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't think you need to upgrade for simple compatibility modes for
    >>>> any
    >>>> Windows OS, back to Win95.
    >>>> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Make-older-programs-run-in-this-version-of-Windows
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you mean XP mode on Windows Virtual PC? This is like having an XP
    >>>> computer built-in to Windows 7.
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> If you are talking about Windows XP mode, you don't need Windows 7
    >>> Ultimate.
    >>> The minimum you will need though is Windows 7 Professional. By
    >>> running in
    >>> XP mode you are not really running Windows XP over Windows 7,...

    >>
    >> WRONG! You are running an actual, activated copy of XP Pro SP3 in a
    >> virtual computer inside of Windows 7.
    >>
    >> but you will
    >>> be running your older programs as though they were on XP.

    >>
    >> They are actually running in a real version of XP Pro SP3 OS.
    >>
    >> The instructions
    >>> are very easy and all it takes is to first, make sure you meet the
    >>> minimum
    >>> system requirements, then download the Virtual PC and finally, XP mode
    >>> itself.

    >>
    >> Downloading "XP Mode" is actually dl'ing a free, activated copy, of XP
    >> Pro SP3.
    >> I hope this helps to clear up this much misunderstood concept of XP
    >> Virtual/Mode.
    >>
    >> Hope this helps.

    >
    > Yes, it helps but I still wonder if this is possible when the Windows 7
    > is 64-bit and I want to run 32-bit XP in it.


    Of course it is. In fact, I'm running two XP (32bit) in two Windows 7/64
    bit.

    None of you addressed this
    > question. As to getting the Ultimate version, I was just considering it
    > because of its HD encryption capability.
     
  9. Cameo

    Cameo Flightless Bird

    "Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >> Yes, it helps but I still wonder if this is possible when the Windows
    >> 7
    >> is 64-bit and I want to run 32-bit XP in it.

    >
    > Of course it is. In fact, I'm running two XP (32bit) in two Windows
    > 7/64 bit.


    Thanks. This is the answer I was waiting for. So after upgrading, what
    are the steps to make my 64-bit Win7 Pro capable to run 32-bit Win Xp
    apps? Do I need my original XP DVD for licensing?
     
  10. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 6/17/2010 5:06 PM, Cameo wrote:
    > "Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >>> Yes, it helps but I still wonder if this is possible when the Windows 7
    >>> is 64-bit and I want to run 32-bit XP in it.

    >>
    >> Of course it is. In fact, I'm running two XP (32bit) in two Windows
    >> 7/64 bit.

    >
    > Thanks. This is the answer I was waiting for. So after upgrading, what
    > are the steps to make my 64-bit Win7 Pro capable to run 32-bit Win Xp
    > apps? Do I need my original XP DVD for licensing?


    All you need do is dl everything from Microsoft...the free virtual PC
    software and the free, already activated, copy of XP Pro SP3 to run in
    the virtual pc.
    Good luck!

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/
     
  11. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Flightless Bird

    "Cameo" <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    > "Frank" <fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:
    >> On 6/16/2010 9:52 PM, bettablue wrote:


    >>> If you are talking about Windows XP mode, you don't need Windows 7
    >>> Ultimate.
    >>> The minimum you will need though is Windows 7 Professional. By running
    >>> in XP mode you are not really running Windows XP over
    >>> Windows 7,...


    >> WRONG! You are running an actual, activated copy of XP Pro SP3 in a
    >> virtual computer inside of Windows 7.


    >>> but you will
    >>> be running your older programs as though they were on XP.

    >>
    >> They are actually running in a real version of XP Pro SP3 OS.


    >>> The instructions
    >>> are very easy and all it takes is to first, make sure you
    >>> meet the minimum system requirements, then download the
    >>> Virtual PC and finally, XP mode itself.


    >> Downloading "XP Mode" is actually dl'ing a free, activated copy, of XP
    >> Pro SP3.
    >> I hope this helps to clear up this much misunderstood concept of XP
    >> Virtual/Mode.



    > Yes, it helps but I still wonder if this is possible when the Windows 7 is
    > 64-bit and I want to run 32-bit XP in it. None of you addressed this
    > question. As to getting the Ultimate version, I was just considering it
    > because of its HD encryption capability.


    The "bitness" (what *is* the best word for that?) of a host and a virtual
    machine don't have to be the same. I can run an environment with a 32-bit
    host and a 64-bit client, or vice-versa, in addition to 32/32 and 64/64
    pairings. 32-bit XP runs quite cheerfully on a 64-bit Windows 7 host,
    modulo the performance hit of having two operating systems competing for the
    same resources.

    Since last August I've been using a 32-bit XP host to run functional and
    compatibility tests of both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7 RTM. It's not
    perfect, and final phase tests are done on bare metal, but I have yet to
    find any problems related to 32 vs. 64 bit clients. (I'm talking about
    VMWare here, but my point is that there's nothing in virtual machine
    concepts that requires host and client to have the same bus width.)

    Some of my users made use of XP Mode in my POE's field test of 64win7: the
    Cisco VPN client we use didn't originally work in a 64-bit environment, so
    the users installed XP Mode, installed the Cisco client, and from there
    talked to the corporate network via the VPN.

    Nothing, of course, comes without cost. In the case of XP Mode you've got
    an entire operating system that's running at the same time your apps in the
    host are also consuming resources (memory especially unless you've started
    adding memory beyond the 32-bit limitation of ~3.5 G8). Then you've now got
    an additional system that you need to keep patched and protected from
    malware.

    It doesn't appear that the OP is in an enterprise environment; for users who
    are there are additional problems with any VM environment (Virtual PC or
    VMWare) such as the security configuration, domain membership, auditing, and
    other related administrivia.

    Joe Morris
     
  12. Cameo

    Cameo Flightless Bird

    "Frank" <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in message news:4c1abb7e@news.x-privat.org...
    > On 6/17/2010 5:06 PM, Cameo wrote:
    > All you need do is dl everything from Microsoft...the free virtual PC
    > software and the free, already activated, copy of XP Pro SP3 to run in
    > the virtual pc.
    > Good luck!
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/


    Great! Thanks a million.
     
  13. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:01:11 -0400, Joe Morris wrote:

    > The "bitness" (what *is* the best word for that?) of a host and a virtual
    > machine don't have to be the same.


    Data width.

    Perhaps you could also say access width or data access width.

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
  14. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Flightless Bird

    "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:01:11 -0400, Joe Morris wrote:
    >
    >> The "bitness" (what *is* the best word for that?) of a host and a virtual
    >> machine don't have to be the same.

    >
    > Data width.
    >
    > Perhaps you could also say access width or data access width.


    But "data width" isn't catchy enough to provide the advertising types with a
    cute name to make consumers think that they've been offered a magic bullet
    that will solve all of the ills of the computer age. Besides, the Madison
    Avenue types would abhor the idea of using a phrase that actually means
    something.

    And "data width" is but one of the characteristics measured by bit count; I
    would argue that the more significant architectural metric is the address
    bus width, where 64-bit systems have the ability to utilize more than the
    (nominal) limit of 4 GB of physical memory. (64-bit operating systems don't
    necessarily have the ability to use the entire 64 bit bus; Windows 7, for
    example, can use up to 192 GB in the Professional/Ultimate/Enterprise
    versions.)

    Joe Morris
     
  15. Sir_George

    Sir_George Flightless Bird

    You asked a question and Gene provided an answer. Other than a "Thank You"
    this post was unnecessary in my opinion.

    --
    Sir_George

    "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:hvgvht0nnd@news6.newsguy.com...
    > "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:01:11 -0400, Joe Morris wrote:
    >>
    >>> The "bitness" (what *is* the best word for that?) of a host and a
    >>> virtual
    >>> machine don't have to be the same.

    >>
    >> Data width.
    >>
    >> Perhaps you could also say access width or data access width.

    >
    > But "data width" isn't catchy enough to provide the advertising types with
    > a cute name to make consumers think that they've been offered a magic
    > bullet that will solve all of the ills of the computer age. Besides, the
    > Madison Avenue types would abhor the idea of using a phrase that actually
    > means something.
    >
    > And "data width" is but one of the characteristics measured by bit count;
    > I would argue that the more significant architectural metric is the
    > address bus width, where 64-bit systems have the ability to utilize more
    > than the (nominal) limit of 4 GB of physical memory. (64-bit operating
    > systems don't necessarily have the ability to use the entire 64 bit bus;
    > Windows 7, for example, can use up to 192 GB in the
    > Professional/Ultimate/Enterprise versions.)
    >
    > Joe Morris
    >
     
  16. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:31:06 -0600, Sir_George wrote:

    > You asked a question and Gene provided an answer. Other than a "Thank You"
    > this post was unnecessary in my opinion.


    I was thinking pretty much the same thing :)

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
  17. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Flightless Bird

    "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
    > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:31:06 -0600, Sir_George wrote:


    >> You asked a question and Gene provided an answer. Other than a "Thank
    >> You"
    >> this post was unnecessary in my opinion.


    > I was thinking pretty much the same thing :)


    Gene: since you seem to feel that my posting in response to your reply was
    inappropriate, I'll apologize to you here.

    I do hope, however, that you saw the first paragraph as a humorous comment
    on the way that advertising for the latest-and-greatest techno-toys uses
    techno-babble; that was behind my original question asking for the best word
    for "bitness."

    Your posting correctly pointed out that data width could be characterized as
    "32-bit" or "64-bit"; I didn't disagree with that but pointed out in the
    second paragraph that there are other attributes such as address bus width
    which share the "32-bit" and "64-bit" characterization.

    It's possible that we've got a terminology problem here. Did you use "data
    access width" to mean the size of the address bus? I didn't, but if that's
    the case I can see why you saw my reply as redundant.

    Joe Morris
     
  18. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:02:38 -0400, Joe Morris wrote:

    > "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:31:06 -0600, Sir_George wrote:

    >
    >>> You asked a question and Gene provided an answer. Other than a "Thank
    >>> You"
    >>> this post was unnecessary in my opinion.

    >
    >> I was thinking pretty much the same thing :)

    >
    > Gene: since you seem to feel that my posting in response to your reply was
    > inappropriate, I'll apologize to you here.
    >
    > I do hope, however, that you saw the first paragraph as a humorous comment
    > on the way that advertising for the latest-and-greatest techno-toys uses
    > techno-babble; that was behind my original question asking for the best word
    > for "bitness."
    >
    > Your posting correctly pointed out that data width could be characterized as
    > "32-bit" or "64-bit"; I didn't disagree with that but pointed out in the
    > second paragraph that there are other attributes such as address bus width
    > which share the "32-bit" and "64-bit" characterization.
    >
    > It's possible that we've got a terminology problem here. Did you use "data
    > access width" to mean the size of the address bus? I didn't, but if that's
    > the case I can see why you saw my reply as redundant.
    >
    > Joe Morris


    I guess we should just relax about this. No point any of us being upset or
    worrying. Having said that, I'll now babble on about my reaction :)

    All I originally meant to do was to answer the one question ["The 'bitness'
    (what *is* the best word for that?)"] in a useful way, and my initial
    reaction to your response was that you were raining on my (very small)
    parade. That's why I agreed with Sir_George - his reply echoed that initial
    reaction.

    Of course, you are quite correct that the data path width and the address
    bus width could be different, although I *believe*[1] that is uncommon at
    best. For precision, we certainly could always use those two terms in their
    respective appropriate contexts.

    And looking again at your post, I now can see that your first paragraph is
    indeed a bit of irony, satire, sarcasm, or sardonicism. Your choice - I
    can't always distinguish those :)

    [1] Yes, it's an act of faith, if not an auto da fe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_de_fé


    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
  19. Joe Morris

    Joe Morris Flightless Bird

    "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

    > I guess we should just relax about this. No point any of us being upset or
    > worrying.


    Agreed. If we ever meet, we can buy each other a beer. You aren't in the
    DC area, by any chance?

    > Of course, you are quite correct that the data path width and the address
    > bus width could be different, although I *believe*[1] that is uncommon at
    > best. For precision, we certainly could always use those two terms in
    > their
    > respective appropriate contexts.


    Not knowing your involvement in IT, I'll suggest that the misunderstanding
    might come from where we got onto the computer bandwagon. My background was
    (and still is) computer engineering; I've been in the field for almost 50
    years (and have the missing hair and gray beard to prove it). In Ye Olde
    Dayes a good programmer had to know a lot about the computer that would be
    running a program he or she wrote; time-critical code paths were frequently
    hand-tuned to squeeze a couple of CPU cycles out of the transit time, and
    knowing how data moved between core and registers was vital to knowing where
    to squeeze...thus my (perhaps too nitpicky) diffrentiation between names for
    data and address bus width.

    And terminology, especially in a young field, has a nasty habit of changing
    its meaning while you're not looking. Case in point: the word "hacker",
    which at one time meant someone who could program something (usually
    considered by "experts" to be impossible or at least very difficult) in an
    elegant fashion. Today the word has highly negative connotations, except
    for the original hackers.

    > [1] Yes, it's an act of faith, if not an auto da fe.


    <groan>

    We now return you to discussions of Windows 7, now in progress.

    Joe Morris
     
  20. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:31:49 -0400, Joe Morris wrote:

    > "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >> I guess we should just relax about this. No point any of us being upset or
    >> worrying.

    >
    > Agreed. If we ever meet, we can buy each other a beer. You aren't in the
    > DC area, by any chance?


    The other coast, sorry. Tell ya what, you can have a beer and pretend it's
    on me, and I'll do the same :)

    >> Of course, you are quite correct that the data path width and the address
    >> bus width could be different, although I *believe*[1] that is uncommon at
    >> best. For precision, we certainly could always use those two terms in
    >> their
    >> respective appropriate contexts.

    >
    > Not knowing your involvement in IT, I'll suggest that the misunderstanding
    > might come from where we got onto the computer bandwagon. My background was
    > (and still is) computer engineering; I've been in the field for almost 50
    > years (and have the missing hair and gray beard to prove it). In Ye Olde
    > Dayes a good programmer had to know a lot about the computer that would be
    > running a program he or she wrote; time-critical code paths were frequently
    > hand-tuned to squeeze a couple of CPU cycles out of the transit time, and
    > knowing how data moved between core and registers was vital to knowing where
    > to squeeze...thus my (perhaps too nitpicky) diffrentiation between names for
    > data and address bus width.


    I do remember a cohort going through a program for the PDP-1 (I think it
    was a -1, but I might be confused 44 years later) looking for a way to save
    a few bits here and a few bits there so he could add some code to a
    program. I was lucky - I didn't have to code that machine.

    > And terminology, especially in a young field, has a nasty habit of changing
    > its meaning while you're not looking. Case in point: the word "hacker",
    > which at one time meant someone who could program something (usually
    > considered by "experts" to be impossible or at least very difficult) in an
    > elegant fashion. Today the word has highly negative connotations, except
    > for the original hackers.


    The first machine I programmed on didn't have a clock frequency - it had a
    cycle time, which was two microseconds...

    Of course, I'm just being weird above - but the manuals actually did quote
    a cycle tine and not a clock frequency. RAM was called "core", and that is
    what it was...

    "Tine" is a typo, but I left it unchanged to make us think of tuning forks
    :)

    >> [1] Yes, it's an act of faith, if not an auto da fe.

    >
    > <groan>
    >
    > We now return you to discussions of Windows 7, now in progress.


    OK.

    > Joe Morris



    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     

Share This Page