Forums | MacLife

Light Speed wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

According to the crazy eyed French guy that helped Steve at the last WWDC, yes.

Yeah if that is indeed the case that sucks, but for the sake of not relying on a competitor as my only source of information, what do some of you who've tried it say?

I thought Vista was a from the ground up new OS. Why are they using old functionality like registry or is this not a new OS and just a rehash of XP?

Microsoft never released any operating system that was ground up new not even win 95  i really would not be surpriced much if some code in vista was written in 82 by gates himself and seeped its way through the ages all hte way to Vista.

Have you ever had a dream you were so sure was real?  What if you were unable to wake from that dream?  How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real?

I almost forgot...



EDIT: FYI, my post was in reply to a spambot whose post got deleted.  I'll spare you the details, but my response was to the following in particular:

...Have you ever had a dream, not so big and so unreal, like live in a your own flat or wear your own clothes?...

Carry on...

Last edited by Mr. T (2006-09-12 12:07 am)

reece_james wrote:

Someone's gona get modded...

As for Vista, I'm quite surprised/scared that there STILL is 16bit code supporting the OS. Apple has at least made the subsystems all 32/64 aware and making the move on making it all 32/64 for Leopard.

Where are people getting this crazy information?

Vista, like XP/2K and NT has a 16 bit subsystem for some limited Win3.x compatability but the OS itself is fully 32-bit and has been since day one. The 16-bit code supports applications, not the operating system.

HackerJax wrote:

reece_james wrote:

Someone's gona get modded...

As for Vista, I'm quite surprised/scared that there STILL is 16bit code supporting the OS. Apple has at least made the subsystems all 32/64 aware and making the move on making it all 32/64 for Leopard.

Where are people getting this crazy information?

Vista, like XP/2K and NT has a 16 bit subsystem for some limited Win3.x compatability but the OS itself is fully 32-bit and has been since day one. The 16-bit code supports applications, not the operating system.

I was under the impression that most of the bootstrapping in XP/2K and the latest Vistas is mainly done or initiated using 16bit code. If you look a little further into it, look at the code behind the initial loading screens, I'm pretty sure they are still 16bit.

HackerJax wrote:

reece_james wrote:

HackerJax wrote:

Where are people getting this crazy information?

Vista, like XP/2K and NT has a 16 bit subsystem for some limited Win3.x compatability but the OS itself is fully 32-bit and has been since day one. The 16-bit code supports applications, not the operating system.

I was under the impression that most of the bootstrapping in XP/2K and the latest Vistas is mainly done or initiated using 16bit code. If you look a little further into it, look at the code behind the initial loading screens, I'm pretty sure they are still 16bit.

Windows 2000/XP are booted by the windows bootloader, NTLDR, which is 32-bit.

I have not looked at vista's boot loader in depth yet but from what I have read it uses the windows pre-installation enviroment (Windows PE).

In Windows PE, does the computer just sit around and do nothing, while the users go around in circles with tech support? Does Coach Ballmer also help with cheerleading practice?

Mr. T wrote:

BTW, all x86 CPUs run in 16-Bit "Real Address" mode by default, until software switches it into 32-Bit "Protected Mode" - Even the IntelliMacs.

Doesn't EFI start the CPU in 32-Bit mode?