What are these descriptions new to me in Win7?


C

chicagofan

I'm seeing a lot of x86 and x64 file tags in Win 7 now, what do these mean?

It's easier to ask here, and get a simple definition than add it to my
long list of things to do/look up right now. Please... someone? :)
bj
 
A

Andy Burns

chicagofan said:
I'm seeing a lot of x86 and x64 file tags
x86 is good old 32 bit, x64 is 64 bit AMD64/EM64T (but not itanium which
is IA64)
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

chicagofan said:
I'm seeing a lot of x86 and x64 file tags in Win 7 now, what do these mean?

It's easier to ask here, and get a simple definition than add it to my
long list of things to do/look up right now. Please... someone? :)
bj
The number 86, is in reference to the part numbers for Intel processors.
(4004, 8008, 8080, 8086, 80286, 80386... after a while the 86 part begins
to stand out.) It has become synonymous with the instruction set used on
Windows PCs. And in this particular case, as Andy points out, it means
"32 bit stuff".

AMD did instruction set extensions for 64 bit sized instructions,
and x64/AMD64/EM64T all refer to those kinds of extensions.

Your typical modern processor now, supports both kinds of instructions
at the same time. That is how it is relatively easy to run 32 bit
programs, from within a 64 bit OS, as well as running 64 bit programs.
There aren't a lot of 64 bit programs, and an example of one, is the
availability of both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Internet Explorer,
on the same machine.

When both 32 bit and 64 bit programs are staged on the same machine,
it's handy to keep them in separate folders. Presumably for the
benefit of humans, as the machine knows what they are. (32 bit ones
are PE format, while 64 bit ones are PE+ format, which stands for
portable executable. As far as I know, the loader can tell what they are.)

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

There are some programs now, which are only available in 64 bit form.
Adobe sells some like that. Presumably, to piss off the people
running a 32 bit OS.

Paul
 
C

chicagofan

Andy said:
x86 is good old 32 bit, x64 is 64 bit AMD64/EM64T (but not itanium which
is IA64)
LOL! Just the opposite of what I thought! I thought 86 must be
something newer. :)
Thanks!
bj
 
C

chicagofan

Paul said:
The number 86, is in reference to the part numbers for Intel processors.
(4004, 8008, 8080, 8086, 80286, 80386... after a while the 86 part begins
to stand out.) It has become synonymous with the instruction set used on
Windows PCs. And in this particular case, as Andy points out, it means
"32 bit stuff".

AMD did instruction set extensions for 64 bit sized instructions,
and x64/AMD64/EM64T all refer to those kinds of extensions.

Your typical modern processor now, supports both kinds of instructions
at the same time. That is how it is relatively easy to run 32 bit
programs, from within a 64 bit OS, as well as running 64 bit programs.
There aren't a lot of 64 bit programs, and an example of one, is the
availability of both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Internet Explorer,
on the same machine.

When both 32 bit and 64 bit programs are staged on the same machine,
it's handy to keep them in separate folders. Presumably for the
benefit of humans, as the machine knows what they are. (32 bit ones
are PE format, while 64 bit ones are PE+ format, which stands for
portable executable. As far as I know, the loader can tell what they are.)

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

There are some programs now, which are only available in 64 bit form.
Adobe sells some like that. Presumably, to piss off the people
running a 32 bit OS.

Paul
Thank you so much, Paul! I was worried about what the 86 represented,
because I have a lot of old programs I want to work on this machine, and
I thought if they already have *another* type [86[, the 32 bit programs
probably won't work. :)

Your detailed explanation of Intel & AMD logic regarding this, will help
me remember it. Thanks again... :)
bj
 
R

R. C. White

Hi, bj.

Just what I thought when I first saw "x86" in WinXP x64 back in about 2005.
Took me months to find out the truth, and by then I had hopelessly tangled
my 32-bit and 64-bit apps. :>(

In case you haven't guessed by now, the "86" refers to the line of CPUs from
Intel with those digits in their names, starting with the 8086, then the
less-popular 80186, and continuing with the 80286, 80386 and 486 - and then
that name-style was abandoned for the Pentium.

WinXP x64 also introduced the "Program Files (x86)" folder to hold 32-bit
apps, along with their 32-bit DLLs and other support infrastructure,
reserving the "Program Files" folder for 64-bit apps.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"chicagofan" wrote in message
Andy said:
x86 is good old 32 bit, x64 is 64 bit AMD64/EM64T (but not itanium which
is IA64)
LOL! Just the opposite of what I thought! I thought 86 must be
something newer. :)
Thanks!
bj
 
R

richard

I'm seeing a lot of x86 and x64 file tags in Win 7 now, what do these mean?

It's easier to ask here, and get a simple definition than add it to my
long list of things to do/look up right now. Please... someone? :)
bj
on an ancient episode of "simon and simon" there was a good line.
"686? Hell. We just got the new 486 in the computers, what the hell
happened to the 586?"

Instead of continuing with the line, the Pentium series was then introduced
in 1993.

The "x" simply refers to "any" version.
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

richard said:
on an ancient episode of "simon and simon" there was a good line.
"686? Hell. We just got the new 486 in the computers, what the hell
happened to the 586?"

Instead of continuing with the line, the Pentium series was then introduced
in 1993.
There had been a series of cases where a _number_ had been copyrighted,
to stop anyone else using it; eventually some judge said something like
"enough - I'm not allowing any more plain numbers to be copyrighted". So
chip manufacturers had to think of _names_ for their chips from then on.
(I remember Cypress naming one of their clock chips "Roboclock" for
example.) As you say, what would have been the (80)586 became the
Pentium. Though it then proceeded with the Pentium II, and so on, rather
than the sextium as it should have been (-:!
 
R

richard

There had been a series of cases where a _number_ had been copyrighted,
to stop anyone else using it; eventually some judge said something like
"enough - I'm not allowing any more plain numbers to be copyrighted". So
chip manufacturers had to think of _names_ for their chips from then on.
(I remember Cypress naming one of their clock chips "Roboclock" for
example.) As you say, what would have been the (80)586 became the
Pentium. Though it then proceeded with the Pentium II, and so on, rather
than the sextium as it should have been (-:!
Numbers can not be copyrighted. Trademarked, maybe, but with no protection.
 
C

Char Jackson

There had been a series of cases where a _number_ had been copyrighted,
to stop anyone else using it; eventually some judge said something like
"enough - I'm not allowing any more plain numbers to be copyrighted". So
chip manufacturers had to think of _names_ for their chips from then on.
(I remember Cypress naming one of their clock chips "Roboclock" for
example.) As you say, what would have been the (80)586 became the
Pentium. Though it then proceeded with the Pentium II, and so on, rather
than the sextium as it should have been (-:!
Cypress? I remember Cyrix, or maybe my memory sucks.




What did I come in here for?

You kids get off of my lawn!
 
Ad

Advertisements

Y

Yousuf Khan

LOL! Just the opposite of what I thought! I thought 86 must be something
newer. :)
Thanks!
bj
x64 is actually a shortening of a shortening. x64 means x86-64. And of
course regular x86 is just x86-32. They might have chosen x32 to avoid
confusion, but x86 had already been use for a long time beforehand.

AMD came up with the 64-bit extensions to x86, the instruction set that
Intel originally came up with. Intel's contribution ended at 32-bit,
while AMD's contribution started at 64-bit. Because Intel and AMD have a
cross-license agreement for x86, they are both able to use both the
32-bit and 64-bit instruction sets free of charge from each other.

Yousuf Khan
 
R

richard

Cypress? I remember Cyrix, or maybe my memory sucks.
Cypress is more into the making of the chips with an emphasis on drivers
more than computers themselves. The company was formed from some people who
had worked for AMD.
 
P

Paul

richard said:
Cypress is more into the making of the chips with an emphasis on drivers
more than computers themselves. The company was formed from some people who
had worked for AMD.
Cypress is an all-purpose chip maker. They have a very rounded
portfolio. And not everything they make, needs a driver. They've
made memory chips for example. And things like various flavors
of FIFO chips.

Things like Roboclock, are for precise phase control on clock
signals. You can keep the outputs in phase, with respect to a four pin
tin can oscillator if you want. Or, you can preferentially shift
the phase of an output, if needed (to compensate for
track length perhaps, feeding another subsystem). We used them
at work, but there are limits as to how many you can combine and
do practical things. Still, in their time, they were a great
invention.

http://www.cypress.com/?docID=24697

Paul
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

richard said:
Cypress is more into the making of the chips with an emphasis on drivers
more than computers themselves. The company was formed from some people who
had worked for AMD.
Yes, I don't think Cypress Semiconductor make any microprocessors, but
they're certainly a well-known semiconductor manufacturer - clock chips,
memories I think - yes, dedicated small memories (part numbers beginning
CY7C), programmable array logic (PALs/PLAs - the forerunners of FPGAs;
they probably make those too, I'm out of touch).

I just mentioned Roboclock as an example of the rash of
interesting/inventive names that appeared for chips once that ruling had
been made that plain numbers wouldn't be copyrightable any more.

(I remember Cyrix too - I think they were one of the makers of cheap
clone processors: the sort of thing that did more or less what Intel or
AMD chips did, but without things like maths co-processors, floating
point units, and so on. The processors were fine for computers that
weren't doing anything onerous, such as most office computers at the
time. I don't know if they [Cyrix] are still around.)
 
P

Paul

J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
richard said:
Cypress is more into the making of the chips with an emphasis on drivers
more than computers themselves. The company was formed from some
people who
had worked for AMD.
Yes, I don't think Cypress Semiconductor make any microprocessors, but
they're certainly a well-known semiconductor manufacturer - clock chips,
memories I think - yes, dedicated small memories (part numbers beginning
CY7C), programmable array logic (PALs/PLAs - the forerunners of FPGAs;
they probably make those too, I'm out of touch).

I just mentioned Roboclock as an example of the rash of
interesting/inventive names that appeared for chips once that ruling had
been made that plain numbers wouldn't be copyrightable any more.

(I remember Cyrix too - I think they were one of the makers of cheap
clone processors: the sort of thing that did more or less what Intel or
AMD chips did, but without things like maths co-processors, floating
point units, and so on. The processors were fine for computers that
weren't doing anything onerous, such as most office computers at the
time. I don't know if they [Cyrix] are still around.)
I think Cypress made processors. They just weren't intended as the
primary processor in a PC.

They do embedded stuff at least. An example of some of the stuff they
offer now. ARM Cortex SOC with toys inside.

http://www.seattlerobotics.org/presentations/2011-01-15-PSoC.pdf

I can find reference to Cypress having made a Sparc processor.
But I seem to remember, they made some other family as well.
For some reason, "MIPS" comes to mind, but I can't find anything
to confirm that. They've made a few different ones.

Paul
 
C

charlie

J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
richard said:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:42:24 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:13:26 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

There had been a series of cases where a _number_ had been
copyrighted,
to stop anyone else using it; eventually some judge said something
like
"enough - I'm not allowing any more plain numbers to be
copyrighted". So
chip manufacturers had to think of _names_ for their chips from
then on.
(I remember Cypress naming one of their clock chips "Roboclock" for
example.) As you say, what would have been the (80)586 became the
Pentium. Though it then proceeded with the Pentium II, and so on,
rather
than the sextium as it should have been (-:!

Cypress? I remember Cyrix, or maybe my memory sucks.


Cypress is more into the making of the chips with an emphasis on drivers
more than computers themselves. The company was formed from some
people who
had worked for AMD.
Yes, I don't think Cypress Semiconductor make any microprocessors, but
they're certainly a well-known semiconductor manufacturer - clock
chips, memories I think - yes, dedicated small memories (part numbers
beginning CY7C), programmable array logic (PALs/PLAs - the forerunners
of FPGAs; they probably make those too, I'm out of touch).

I just mentioned Roboclock as an example of the rash of
interesting/inventive names that appeared for chips once that ruling
had been made that plain numbers wouldn't be copyrightable any more.

(I remember Cyrix too - I think they were one of the makers of cheap
clone processors: the sort of thing that did more or less what Intel
or AMD chips did, but without things like maths co-processors,
floating point units, and so on. The processors were fine for
computers that weren't doing anything onerous, such as most office
computers at the time. I don't know if they [Cyrix] are still around.)
I think Cypress made processors. They just weren't intended as the
primary processor in a PC.

They do embedded stuff at least. An example of some of the stuff they
offer now. ARM Cortex SOC with toys inside.

http://www.seattlerobotics.org/presentations/2011-01-15-PSoC.pdf

I can find reference to Cypress having made a Sparc processor.
But I seem to remember, they made some other family as well.
For some reason, "MIPS" comes to mind, but I can't find anything
to confirm that. They've made a few different ones.

Paul
If I remember correctly, Cypress was one of the companies involved in
efforts to re create and custom manufacture replacements for obsolete
chips in DOD systems.
It seems that there are quite a few electronic "weapons systems" out
there, still in use, long after (a decade or two) the original expected
lifetime.
 
C

Char Jackson

(I remember Cyrix too - I think they were one of the makers of cheap
clone processors: the sort of thing that did more or less what Intel or
AMD chips did, but without things like maths co-processors, floating
point units, and so on. The processors were fine for computers that
weren't doing anything onerous, such as most office computers at the
time. I don't know if they [Cyrix] are still around.)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix>

They merged with National Semiconductor in 1997 after a series of
interesting legal battles with Intel.
 
Ad

Advertisements

E

Evan Platt

on an ancient episode of "simon and simon" there was a good line.
"686? Hell. We just got the new 486 in the computers, what the hell
happened to the 586?"
Going to have to call bullshit on this one, bullshitis, err sorry,
bullis.

Simon and Simon aired from 1981 - 1989.

The 686 was introduced in 1995.

Another bullshit story, like you claiming to have been at the same RV
park as someone who died 6 years earlier.
 

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. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top