WIN95-16 OR 32?

[Guest]

since theres no support for win95, i guess ill ask here-anyone know was win95
supposed to be for 32 or 16 bit machines? does it work for both? am i correct
in thinking win95 was for the first 32 bit pc's, but still works with 16 bit
programs?

 

[BigJim]

it did not work with all 16 bit applications.

 

[Doug Knox MS-MVP]

You're correct. Win95 was a 32 bit OS and would run most 16 bit programs.

 

[David Candy]

Win 95 needs a 32 bit processor. It is mostly 32 bit but the graphics were still 16 bit. 16 bit is far more memory efficient. MS testing showed 16 bit graphics, with the lower memory use, was faster than 32 bit code for machines people owned at that time.

 

[Detlev Dreyer]

since theres no support for win95, i guess ill ask here-anyone know was
win95 supposed to be for 32 or 16 bit machines?

32-bit machines.

does it work for both?

Win95 was designed for 32-bit machines only.

am i correct in thinking win95 was for the first 32 bit pc's,

Not really. Win3 was designed for Intel's 386 CPUs (32-bit) and
Win3.1 took advantage of 32-bit management (virtual device drivers)
already. In addition, there was an expansion available ("WinS") in
order to run limited 32-bit applications under Win 3.1. Win95 was
the next generation, consisting of both 16-bit and 32-bit code.

but still works with 16 bit programs?

Correct, in most cases at least.

 

[Detlev Dreyer]

Win3.1 took advantage of 32-bit management (virtual device drivers)
already. In addition, there was an expansion available ("WinS")

Should read "Win32s".
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Win32s.html

 

[Guest]

386 and 486 were 32 bit? thanx for the info all

Should read "Win32s".
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Win32s.html

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]>

386 and 486 were 32 bit? thanx for the info all

Yes indeed.

 

[Richard Urban]

A mixture of both 32 bit and some 16 bit left overs!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Detlev Dreyer]

386 and 486 were 32 bit?

http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/Intel-microprocessors.htm

 

[NobodyMan]

In message <[email protected]>


Yes indeed.

Didn't the 386 read two 16 bit chunks to get 32 bits, process, then
spit it out again in two 16 bit chunks? I could be wrong.

 

[Tim Slattery]

Didn't the 386 read two 16 bit chunks to get 32 bits, process, then
spit it out again in two 16 bit chunks? I could be wrong.

I think you're thinking about the 386sx (I think that was the suffix).
Kind of a hybrid beast, it was a 32bit 386 processor that could sit on
a 16bit system bus. The normal version was the 386DX, a fully 32-bit
machine.

The 386 was the last generation that didn't include a built-in
floating point unit. You could buy a 387FPU as an extra.

 

[Detlev Dreyer]

The 386 was the last generation that didn't include a built-in
floating point unit.

Yes and no, Tim. I had a 486-SX w/o FPU at that time. The 486-DX CPU
had a built-in FPU. http://lowendpc.com/tech/486.shtml (excerpt)

| As with the earlier 386 family, Intel released a lower cost version
| of the 486 and dubbed it 486 SX. The 486 SX was deliberately crippled
| by disabling the FPU,

 

[Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)]

Didn't the 386 read two 16 bit chunks to get 32 bits, process, then
spit it out again in two 16 bit chunks? I could be wrong.

Hi,

That would be 386SX, it had a 16-bit data bus. 386DX had a 32-bit
data bus.

 

[Tim Slattery]

Yes and no, Tim. I had a 486-SX w/o FPU at that time. The 486-DX CPU
had a built-in FPU. http://lowendpc.com/tech/486.shtml (excerpt)

| As with the earlier 386 family, Intel released a lower cost version
| of the 486 and dubbed it 486 SX. The 486 SX was deliberately crippled
| by disabling the FPU,

Oh yeah, you're right. But the 486SX /487 was quite different from the
386/387 and 286/287 processors. The 486DX included a floating point
processor. The 486SX was a cheaper version that was a *complete* 486
chip with the floating point unit disabled. They simply turned it off!

The idea was that you would then buy a 487 chip to complete it. But
the 487 was another complete, fully-functional 486 chip. You'd plug it
in to a second socket on the motherboard, and it would take over *all*
duties from the 486SX. So now you've got a 486SX chip doing nothing,
so you could stick it in another motherboard, and build another
computer around it, right? Wrong! The motherboards were made so that
the 487 chip would not function if the idle, useless 486SX was not
plugged in. Doing absolutely nothing, but plugged in.

Intel thought this was a nifty way to sell more CPUs. Many of us
differed.

 

[Detlev Dreyer]

The idea was that you would then buy a 487 chip to complete it. But
the 487 was another complete, fully-functional 486 chip. You'd plug it
in to a second socket on the motherboard, and it would take over *all*
duties from the 486SX. So now you've got a 486SX chip doing nothing,
so you could stick it in another motherboard, and build another
computer around it, right? Wrong! The motherboards were made so that
the 487 chip would not function if the idle, useless 486SX was not
plugged in. Doing absolutely nothing, but plugged in.

You're absolutely correct. Since the first 486 CPUs came as 486-SX in
Germany only, I had no choice at that time. The 487 FPU was offered
for approx. 500 USD, depending on the currency exchange rate. That's
why I gave up the idea to "complete" the system and I'm positive that
this was a good idea.