RE: [BULK] RE: 64 bit Windows...

["Hall, Philip" <phall@xxxxxxxx>]

> Sorry Phil, I almost spilt my coffee when you suggested that MS/Intel
> was trying to maintain "as much backward compatibility as possible."

They are - it would be disastrous for both companies if they don't.
 
> Per the original article "Most 32-bit programs that engage the operating
> system at a low level just won't run under XP64.  Users upgrading an
> existing 64-bit system to XP64 will also have to beware hardware
> driver-compatibility problems."  "Some programs, particularly low-level
> system utilities and drivers, just aren't compatible." and "XP64 finally
> eliminates support for 16-bit programs entirely. They just won't run."

True drivers as system level software will always be an issue - but did I worry 
that when I moved from my CISC to RISC machine that the tape cartridge in my 
hand was not going to be recognised? No of course not - just like when I 
upgraded my PC from Win98 to WindowsXP I didn't worry that my HP printer was 
going to stop working.

Anyone who expects prior OS level drivers and system level software to work in 
this new version shouldn't really be near a computer in the first place.

> Additionally "existing high-end applications written for Microsoft's
> Itanium-specific Windows Server 2003 (64-bit, right?) aren't
> cross-compatible."

That, as I understand it is due to compiler issues. Much for the same answer to 
the question; why can't take my Solaris binaries and run them on RedHat, but 
they are both UNIX right, so why not?