difference between 16bit and 32bit os's

[iseeu_3]

hello all,

i have win2k and found out a while ago that it isn't a true 32bit os, it's just 16bit with 32bit extensions and xp was the first (windows) true 32bit os. now my question is, is there a true difference in performance between a 16bit os and 32bit os? do games necessarily run better on a 32bit than a 16bit os? what's the real difference anywayz. i was just thinking about it and thought that games should run better on a 16bit os rather than a 32bit one because the load is so much lighter for 16bit than 32. does that even make any sense? thanx for the input.

<shad>

[samwichse]

Um, actually you're wrong or your source was.

Windows 95, 98, and Me were 32-bit extensions to a 16-bit OS, however, the NT line has been 32-bit through and through since NT 4 came out.

Windows (16 bit)
Windows 3.1
95-me (v 3.5)

Windows (32 bit)
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (5.0)
Windows XP (5.1)

The only real differences in 2000 and XP are that XP starts up faster, but has more bloat, and spies on you more.

Sam

[butch81385]

The only real differences in 2000 and XP are that XP starts up faster, but has more bloat, and spies on you more.

these statements start wars because of personal preferences here.... for most people, either you love xp or hate it.... yes its fat, but im fat and im still lovable.....

[R_1_Oh_Seven]

i hated xp for awile but then i got to liking it because of the built in unzipping tools and a few other features.

Then i foudn the dark side of xp from deleted and not knowing about linux too much i ran down to windows 2000


Go to this page and read the TechIMO Rules and Info. Please.

surreal

[Martoch]

Originally posted by R_1_Oh_Seven


Then i foudn the dark side of xp from deleted and not knowing about linux too much i ran down to windows 2000

Please edit your link...that type of language is against the forum rules.

Thanks!
Mike

[iseeu_3]

i read that in pcworld magazine; may have read it wrong. thanx for the help.

<shad>

[meese]

The difference is in the data bus. Old Z80's were 8 bit, Dos up to me was 16 bit, NT is 32 bit. The data bus carries the data from the processor to other peripherals on the motherboard. Having a larger data bus means processing data in larger chunks and will obviously be faster. Of course the speed of the processor also determines speed. but if you had (as and example) a 2.2Ghz processor running on an 8 bit data bus, it would have to do 4 times as much work (clock cycles) just transfrering data compared to a 32 bit bus which would be able to grab the 32 bit data in less clock cycles. And don't confuse the data bus with the address bus. They are two different animals.

[nukes]

Yes, but since version 3.0 Windows has run by default in "i386 Enhanced" mode, meaning that it will handle 386 (32-bit) instructions. DOS supported 32 bit operation as well. Most programs made use of an extra runtime package for memory and CPU known as DOS4GW. Microsoft also released the Win32 dlls for Windows 3.1/3.11 around '93/'94 and these were required by many apps that made use of the 32-bit functionality.
For 9x, DOS was mostly used as a loader for the windows environment, simply loading himem.sys and win.com. No device drivers were handled in the 16-bit space. So whilst 9x and DOS weren't strictly 32bit at the lowest level, they have provided 32 bit APIs and allow programs to execute in 32 bit mode. I beleive they had to do a significant rewrite of some parts of DOS (around version 3.2/3.3 I think) to make it all work, but it does work. Lots of things (like games etc) still had big chunks of assembly in them anyway, so it didn't matter a great deal.
As to NT/2k/XP They are all 32bit. Even 3.51 could run many of the NT4/2k applications such as Office 97 if you installed the Win32s.