XP (x86) or (x64)

[Mike]

Hi

I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are?
I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use.
How do I know?

Thank you.

Mike

 

[GreenieLeBrun]

Hi

I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are?
I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use.
How do I know?

Thank you.

Mike

x86 is the 32 bit OS and x64 is the 64 bit version

 

[Mike]

x86 is the 32 bit OS and x64 is the 64 bit version

Many thanks.

Mike

 

[Paul]

Hi

I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are?
I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use.
How do I know?

Thank you.

Mike

x86 could be viewed as related to a 32 bit version of something.
x64 could be viewed as related to a 64 bit version of something.

Both WinXP and Vista are available as 32 bit and 64 bit versions.
A current generation Intel or AMD processor, can run either a
32 bit or 64 bit OS. But an older processor (like my Pentium 4
or my AthlonXP), can only run the 32 bit version of the OS.

The 64 bit version of OS, is also backward compatible with older
programs, and if it didn't do that at least, it would be a very
lonely OS. What that means is, if you have a 64 bit capable processor,
you can use a 64 bit OS, but run that old 32 bit version of Photoshop
you've always used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64

Paul

 

[Mike]

x86 could be viewed as related to a 32 bit version of something.
x64 could be viewed as related to a 64 bit version of something.

Both WinXP and Vista are available as 32 bit and 64 bit versions.
A current generation Intel or AMD processor, can run either a
32 bit or 64 bit OS. But an older processor (like my Pentium 4
or my AthlonXP), can only run the 32 bit version of the OS.

The 64 bit version of OS, is also backward compatible with older
programs, and if it didn't do that at least, it would be a very
lonely OS. What that means is, if you have a 64 bit capable processor,
you can use a 64 bit OS, but run that old 32 bit version of Photoshop
you've always used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64

    Paul

Thank you very much, Paul.
Your explanation is so helpful that I can fully understand.

Mike

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi

I'd like to know what Windows XP (x86) and Windows XP (x64) are?
I use Windows XP, but I don't know which one I use.
How do I know?

x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows.

The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using
32-bit (x86).

To be sure, hold down the Windows key and press Pause|Break. If it's
64-bit, it will say so there.

 

[Mike]

x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows.

The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using
32-bit (x86).

To be sure, hold down the Windows key and press Pause|Break. If it's
64-bit, it will say so there.

Thank you very much for your information.

Mike

 

[M.I.5¾]

x86 is 32-bit Windows, and x64 is 64-bit Windows.

The answer, for almost everyone who has to ask, is that you using
32-bit (x86).

For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which
started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and
wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system). The first 32 bit
processor was the 80386 but mainstream 32 bit Windows was still a long way
off..

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Thank you very much for your information.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

For the curious: x86 is a reference to the x86 series of processors which
started with the intel 8086 processor (which was a 16 bit processor and
wouldn't be able to run a 32 bit operating system).

And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088
instead.

 

[Bob I]

And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088
instead.

Make that IBM PC, other manufacturers did use the 8086, Olivetti and
Xerox for a couple of examples.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Make that IBM PC, other manufacturers did use the 8086, Olivetti and
Xerox for a couple of examples.

Yes, that's what I meant, but thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bill in Co.]

And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088
instead.

Pretty similar, though.
It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the
8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16
bit word size for the *data* bus.

 

[Bob I]

Pretty similar, though.
It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the
8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a16
bit word size for the *data* bus.

Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on
the 8086. IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about
the CPU for the IBM PC.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Pretty similar, though.
It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the
8088 and 8086 anymore.

The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit.

 

[Bill in Co.]

The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit.

That's what I said too. But there was a notable difference between the
two, and maybe the 8088 only had a 8 bit *data* bus.

 

[M.I.5¾]

And interestingly was never used in a PC. The first PC used an 8088
instead.

Not correct. Although the *first* PCs did indeed use an 8088, there were
plenty of PCs that were fitted with 8086 processors (and I still possess
one - but only because it's slow enough to run a particular application
properly).

It was the 80186 that never made it into a PC.

 

[M.I.5¾]

Pretty similar, though.
It's been awhile, though, and I can't remember the difference between the
8088 and 8086 anymore. I seem to remember 20-bit *addressing*, and a 16
bit word size for the *data* bus.

Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on
the 8086. IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about
the CPU for the IBM PC.

---------------

Indeed. The IBM PC was an every expense spared design as IBM considered
that they were unlikely to sell more than half a million. They turned out
to be right, but their competitors, who were able to easily clone the
design, sold millions. Many of their competitors (including Amstrad - not
noted for splashing out) used the 8086 and produced machines that
outperformed the IBM.

 

[M.I.5¾]

The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit.

That's not quite true. The 8088 was as much a 16 bit processor as the
8086 - at least internally. The difference lay in the width of the external
data bus. The 8088 used an 8 bit data bus whereas the 8086 used a 16 bit
bus.

Even then the difference wasn't quite that straightforward, because the 8086
could't import or export 16 bit data in one go on its 16 bit bus. In fact
it read the 2 8 bit halves separately but it was able to read both halves
significantly quicker than the 8088 could read its 8 bit bus twice. When
running a program that required no branches, the 8086 read each half of the
data bus alternately. It was thus possible to run programs where the 16 bit
instructions were missaligned in memory and the 8 bit instuctions were read
on the high byte of the bus. This actually slowed the processor down as it
had to swap the data around internally. The architecture was almost closer
to an interleaved memory model than a true 16 bit model.

Some PC architectures today closely emulate this model for improved memory
access speeds, however, it is not the processor that does this but one of
the support chips.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Yep, the 8088 only had an 8 bit memory bus as compared the 16 bit bus on
the 8086.

You mean the external *data bus*. (the term "memory bus" is a bit
ambiguous to me)

What about the address bus? Well, they both had 20 bit addressing, as I
recall, so I presume that meant both had twenty *actual* address lines (i.e.
A0 thru A19), (unless some tricks were used, an example of which is noted
below).

This just reminded me; one of these older chips had a *multiplexed* address
and data bus! I think it was the 8085. What a mess. (Well, ok,
not exactly, as it was sorted out to the outside world by another chip).

IIRC it was a "economy" issue that lead to that decision about
the CPU for the IBM PC.
Yup.

---------------

Indeed. The IBM PC was an every expense spared design as IBM considered
that they were unlikely to sell more than half a million. They turned out
to be right, but their competitors, who were able to easily clone the
design, sold millions. Many of their competitors (including Amstrad - not
noted for splashing out) used the 8086 and produced machines that
outperformed the IBM.

And the very first IBM PC's didn't even have a floppy drive, as I recall
(one had to use an external cassette for storage). And then came the 5.25
inch drive(s).