Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:31:53 -0700
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:24:37 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
<no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9td49451cfd3ii00pl50ag2stsoa4015k3@xxxxxxxxxx
The major difference is that the 8088 was 8-bit and the 8086 16-bit.
That's not quite true. The 8088 was as much a 16 bit processor as the
8086 - at least internally. The difference lay in the width of the external
data bus. The 8088 used an 8 bit data bus whereas the 8086 used a 16 bit
bus.
Yes, that's correct. I was trying to be brief, so I eliminated that
detail.
Thanks.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.
- References:
- Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- From: M.I.5¾
- Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- Prev by Date: Re: How do you cut down the Programs that load at Boot?
- Next by Date: Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- Previous by thread: Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- Next by thread: Re: XP (x86) or (x64)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|