On Tue, 9 May 2000, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > Guido van Rossum writes: > > Another view: win32 was my way of saying the union of Windows 95, > > Windows NT, and Windows 98, contrasted to Windows 3.1 and non-Windows > > platforms. If Windows 2000 is sufficiently different to the user, it > > deserves a different platform id (win2000?). > > > > Is there a connection between Windows 2000 and _WIN64? > > Since no one else has responded, here's some stuff from MS on the > topic of Win64: > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/strategic/64bit.asp > > This document talks only of the Itanium (IA64) processor, and doesn't > mention the Alpha at all. I know the NT shipping on Alpha machines is > Win32, though the actual application code can be 64-bit (think "32-bit > Solaris on an Ultra"); just the system APIs are 32 bits. Windows is no longer made/sold for the Alpha processor. That was canned in August of '99, I believe. Possibly August 98. Basically, Windows is just the x86 family, and Win/CE for various embedded processors. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4