Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #19761
| From | "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? |
| Date | 2012-11-16 09:23 +0800 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <op.wnud4yrfwv4027@sl-home> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <k80j5b$o67$1@speranza.aioe.org> <50a3d194$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <1ime9q5hlhcfs.x8wnfo60hr9g$.dlg@40tude.net> <k81l6c$oh3$1@news.albasani.net> <k83sma$3qm$1@dont-email.me> |
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:08:58 +0800, Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> wrote: > > Wrong. Typical 64 bit processors have either a 36 bit or a 40 bit > physical address bus (40 bits are 1 TB, an almost incredible amount of > RAM, wikipedia mentions that some AMD chips even offer a 48 bit memory > bus). Note that bus width and register width do not have to have a > one-to-one relationship. The early 286 processor had a register width of > 16 bits but an address bus with 24 bits (4MB), so they had to invent > this segmentation model in order to compute a 20bit address from two 16 > bit registers. Twenty years later, the segmenation unit is still present > at the Intel architecture while the numbers have been reversed: now the > 36 or 40 bit physical address is computed from a 16 bit value and a 64 > bit value. Sounds like overkill, and yes, it is. That's just for > backwards compatibility for applications from 1985. > > Regards, > Stuart Thanks. I am not too sure now :-( I have an old Intel Pentium 4 1500Mhz PC. Can it run 64-bit OS ? -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? "sl@exabyte" <sb5309@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-14 21:58 +0800
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? "sl@exabyte" <sb5309@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-14 22:01 +0800
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-11-14 09:12 -0500
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-14 14:11 -0300
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-11-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2012-11-14 18:36 +0100
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? "sl@exabyte" <sb5309@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-15 10:48 +0800
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-11-16 00:08 +0100
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? "SL@maxis" <ecp_gen@my-rialto.com> - 2012-11-16 09:23 +0800
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-15 22:52 -0600
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-11-16 16:44 +0100
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2012-11-17 13:18 +0100
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-17 12:42 -0600
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-15 22:46 -0600
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-11-16 12:08 +0100
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-16 18:08 -0600
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Stuart <DerTopper@web.de> - 2012-11-17 23:59 +0100
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-11-16 12:42 +0000
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-11-16 05:17 -0800
Re: Program in 32-bit, run on 64-bit OK? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2012-11-14 20:08 +0100
csiph-web