What is this program files x86 stuff anyway?


M

Mike Barnes

Ad

Advertisements

R

R. C. White

Whew! That's a big relief!! ;<)

RC


"Ken Blake" wrote in message

By convention, we don't stop aging unless we die, so for you to say "in
three years I'll catch up with" R. C. are you implying that he's going to
die soon, and thus stop aging, allowing you to catch up? Ouch. ;-)

No. I'm saying that I'll catch up in categories. In three years we
will be in the same category.
 
R

Robin Bignall

You guys are even older than *me*. <g>

The TRS80 started in 1977, but floppies (originally 8") started
earlier. They were developed in the late 1960s, and became
commercially available in 1971 (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskettes). I remember when they first
started out, on the IBM 370 mainframe.
They were invented by IBM to help IBM's customer engineers (the ones who
fix the hardware) to change the microcode on /370 mainframes. Before
that the CEs had to carry boxes of punched cards around. The floppies
were internal to the machine and used solely for that purpose;
programmers couldn't use them as an I/O device. Then, somebody had a
bright idea and they started appearing on word processing systems and
eventually the PC.
 
B

Bob I

Hi, Ken.



We called it "mouse-ears". ;<)

If you saw it, you wouldn't ask why.

RC
I have one laying around here someplace that I used to use. It's 110/300
selectable.
 
K

Ken Blake

Whew! That's a big relief!! ;<)

LOL!

Ken


"Ken Blake" wrote in message




No. I'm saying that I'll catch up in categories. In three years we
will be in the same category.
 
K

Ken Blake

They were invented by IBM to help IBM's customer engineers (the ones who
fix the hardware) to change the microcode on /370 mainframes. Before
that the CEs had to carry boxes of punched cards around. The floppies
were internal to the machine and used solely for that purpose;

Yes, but it wasn't just the CEs who used them. The operators also used
them to IMPL the machine.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Y

Yousuf Khan

And then, 64-bit Windows XP came along. WinXP X64 could run 32-bit
programs just fine, but they needed the 32-bit versions of DLLs and
other support files. To keep those 32-bit programs out of Win X64's
Program Files folder, they created a new Program Files folder just for
32-bit apps. Then (stupidly, in my opinion) they named it Program Files
(x86), supposed to remind us that these programs were for the 32-bit
Intel CPUs: 8086, 80186, 80286...etc.
Actually, those CPU's that you listed were Intel's 16-bit CPUs. All of
the 32-bit CPUs were the 386, 486, and Pentium through to
early-generation Pentium 4's. The first generation Intel 64-bit CPUs
were the late-model Pentium 4's, through to the Core series. Of course,
AMD also had a generation of 32-bit (386, 486, K5, K6, through to
Athlon) and 64-bit (Athlon 64 through to Phenom, through to all modern
processors, FX-, A-, E-series, etc.) procesosrs.

Yousuf Khan
 
C

Carpe_Diem

Op 3/09/2013 16:56, Ken Blake schreef:
The US life expectancy is now 78.7 years. I divide that into three
equal categories:

0- 26.2 years Young
26.2 - 52.4 years Middle-aged
52.4 - 78.7 years Old

Everybody older than 78.7 is superannuated! <vbg>
Old at 52.4 ?????
I am just feeling middle-aged but you call me old for already 8 years...
Not normal, man...
I guess you are... :
young : 0 - 38
middle-aged : 38 - 68
old : 68 - 85 (or even 90)
superannuated : older then old ;-))
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Carpe_Diem said:
Op 3/09/2013 16:56, Ken Blake schreef:

Old at 52.4 ?????
I am just feeling middle-aged but you call me old for already 8 years...
Not normal, man...
I guess you are... :
young : 0 - 38
middle-aged : 38 - 68
old : 68 - 85 (or even 90)
superannuated : older then old ;-))
As recently pointed out in a genealogy 'group I take, any _average_
figure is skewed: I don't know where Ken Blake got the 78.7 figure from,
but unless it was from a source that said something like "average
excluding unnatural causes" or something like that ...

The genealogy one was pointing out that average ages quoted for past
times made it look as if people didn't live long at all in the past, but
they were skewed by the until-recently huge level of infant mortality;
people in the past _did_ in fact live to ages not _that_ dissimilar to
today, in reasonable numbers. Now although that particular skew source
is much reduced, there will still be a higher rate of death from other
causes - road kill, shootings, etc. - among the young (15-30?), which if
removed from the statistic, would probably lead to a higher figure for
what most people would at first glance think "life expectancy" means. (I
think most people would assume it means "age to which one might expect
to survive illnesses.")
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"On my planet there is a saying - the man who trusts can never be betrayed,
only
mistaken."
"Life expectancy must be fairly short among your people." - Cally & Avon
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Yousuf Khan said:
Actually, those CPU's that you listed were Intel's 16-bit CPUs. All of
the 32-bit CPUs were the 386, 486, and Pentium through to
early-generation Pentium 4's. The first generation Intel 64-bit CPUs
were the late-model Pentium 4's, through to the Core series. Of course,
AMD also had a generation of 32-bit (386, 486, K5, K6, through to
Athlon) and 64-bit (Athlon 64 through to Phenom, through to all modern
processors, FX-, A-, E-series, etc.) procesosrs.

Yousuf Khan
Some - I think it was the (80)486s - were one width internally, but the
previous width externally; done to keep the package size down I think,
but also to allow use with already-developed designs using the narrower
size. They were distinguished by whether the part number ended in SX or
DX, the SX being the half-width-externally ones. These worked at
whatever it was internally, but had to fetch - and return - to/from
memory in two gulps.

It wasn't helped by the fact that the same naming distinction - SX being
the inferior one - was used for a different series ((80)306s, I think,
though I could have that the wrong way round, or it could be more
complex than that) to indicate whether the processor included the
floating point processor or not. (For the ones that didn't, it could be
added as an external device, part number ending in '87 rather than '86.)

It was also around this time that processors started to run faster
internally than externally - initially by a number on the end, e. g. a
....DX4-33 ran at 33 MHz (!) externally but 133 internally. (Later they
started to use the internal speed as part of the part number as it
looked faster.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"On my planet there is a saying - the man who trusts can never be betrayed,
only
mistaken."
"Life expectancy must be fairly short among your people." - Cally & Avon
 
K

Ken Blake

As recently pointed out in a genealogy 'group I take, any _average_
figure is skewed:

Of course. And note the smiley in the quote above. What I said was
tongue in cheek.

I don't know where Ken Blake got the 78.7 figure from,

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm



The genealogy one was pointing out that average ages quoted for past
times made it look as if people didn't live long at all in the past, but
they were skewed by the until-recently huge level of infant mortality;

Absolutely!
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Dave

"Wow!", Don said, "The older you get, the older you get!"
Now I'm looking at the table that says if I make it to 80, I can expect
7.8 more years after that, so I'm going to stop worrying for a while.
;<)

So just keep living and you'll be superannuated, too, before you know
it. ;<}
I made it to 80 but that was 3 years ago.
 
R

Robin Bignall

Yes, but it wasn't just the CEs who used them. The operators also used
them to IMPL the machine.
Ah, thanks, Ken. Two things I never got involved with were running the
machine, and learning the intricacies of JCL.
 
K

Ken Blake

Ah, thanks, Ken. Two things I never got involved with were running the
machine, and learning the intricacies of JCL.

You're welcome. I never ran the machine myself either, but over the
years I managed two different data centers.

I used to know JCL very well, but it's been so many years now, that I
remember almost nothing of it.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

I had one of those in my pharmacy to do the stock ordering - it was
considered very posh in those days. It ran at the impressive speed of 300
baud :) It looked quite, but not exactly, like this one.

http://bit.ly/1a48I4F
Oh man! Such nostalgia!

1. I miss them.

2. I'm happier without them.

3. *MUCH* happier.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Y

Yousuf Khan

Some - I think it was the (80)486s - were one width internally, but the
previous width externally; done to keep the package size down I think,
but also to allow use with already-developed designs using the narrower
size. They were distinguished by whether the part number ended in SX or
DX, the SX being the half-width-externally ones. These worked at
whatever it was internally, but had to fetch - and return - to/from
memory in two gulps.
That was actually the 386SX vs. 386DX. The 386SX was internally a 32-bit
processor, but it had a 16-bit data window, and a 24-bit address window.
This allowed the 386SX to use chipsets compatible with the older 286
processor, which coincidentally also had these sizes of address and data
bits.
It wasn't helped by the fact that the same naming distinction - SX being
the inferior one - was used for a different series ((80)306s, I think,
though I could have that the wrong way round, or it could be more
complex than that) to indicate whether the processor included the
floating point processor or not. (For the ones that didn't, it could be
added as an external device, part number ending in '87 rather than '86.)
The later 486SX and 486DX was a little different than the 386SX/DX. By
the time the 486 had come out, 32-bit chipsets were more common, so
there was really no need to backfit 16-bit chipsets to them. However,
the difference between an SX and DX in the 486 sphere was that the SX
had no FPU in it, or it had its FPU disabled. Back then, FPU math was
less common, so many people thought that the FPU was superfluous and
added unnecessary expense to the processors.
It was also around this time that processors started to run faster
internally than externally - initially by a number on the end, e. g. a
...DX4-33 ran at 33 MHz (!) externally but 133 internally. (Later they
started to use the internal speed as part of the part number as it
looked faster.)
That was just a clockspeed multiplier distinction. A DX2 ran at twice
the internal speed as its external input speed, and a DX4 ran at 4 times
the speed. It had nothing to do with whether it was 16-, 32-, or
whatever-speed.

Yousuf Khan
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Yousuf Khan said:
That was actually the 386SX vs. 386DX. The 386SX was internally a
32-bit processor, but it had a 16-bit data window, and a 24-bit address
window. This allowed the 386SX to use chipsets compatible with the
older 286 processor, which coincidentally also had these sizes of
address and data bits.


The later 486SX and 486DX was a little different than the 386SX/DX. By
the time the 486 had come out, 32-bit chipsets were more common, so
there was really no need to backfit 16-bit chipsets to them. However,
the difference between an SX and DX in the 486 sphere was that the SX
had no FPU in it, or it had its FPU disabled. Back then, FPU math was
less common, so many people thought that the FPU was superfluous and
added unnecessary expense to the processors.
I think you'll find that you're agreeing with what I said, other than
that - if it's as you say - I had the 386SX/DX and 486SX/DX distinctions
the wrong way round (which I said I might have done).

I brought it up because we seemed to be in a discussion of bit widths,
and I brought the FPU thing up because of the potential confusion that
the use of the same SX/DX naming might cause.
That was just a clockspeed multiplier distinction. A DX2 ran at twice
the internal speed as its external input speed, and a DX4 ran at 4
times the speed. It had nothing to do with whether it was 16-, 32-, or
whatever-speed.
Again, I knew that - I just mentioned it for completeness. Perhaps I
should have said what you have, though, that it had nothing to do with
bit width.
Yousuf Khan
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

TV and radio presenters are just like many people, except they tend to wear
make-up all the time. Especially the radio presenters. - Eddie Mair, in Radio
Times 25-31 August 2012
 
S

Stan Brown

However,
the difference between an SX and DX in the 486 sphere was that the SX
had no FPU in it, or it had its FPU disabled.
As I recall, every 80486 had the integrated floating-point processor.
Wikipedia seems to agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80486

Also, the "models" section of that article goes into a lot more
detail than just SX and DX.
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

FromTheRafters

As I recall, every 80486 had the integrated floating-point processor.
Wikipedia seems to agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80486
The way I heard it, some 486 chips had failed or otherwise disabled
fpu's and were used with a math co-processor and termed SX as opposed
to DX. That Wiki article seems to agree with that and also that some
were manufactured without the internal fpu to save space and cost -
that, I didn't know.
 

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