At 06:25 PM 8/2/97 +0930, you wrote:

>>What makes you think 32 bit apps are more efficient ?
>>
>
>That wasn't what he claimed.  CPM on a Z80 machine loads WordStar faster
>than NT on a Pentium can load Word, but I know which I'd sooner use...
>OTOH, Word stinks for editing straight text.

True - I made an interpetation based on the paradigm initiating his query.

>>Windows 95 is 95% 16 bit drivers and libraries most of which is ported
>>over from win 3.11.
>
>Are you *sure* about those percentages?  Most of the V-drivers are 32 bit
>(quite a number were in 3.11 for example, the disk access system)  The
>memory/system stuff is 32 bit.  Most of the GDI is thunked to 16 bit though.

No - but 95 for 95 - they were real cute numbers - I don't think its too
far off though.

>>there is a lot of propoganda and hype Win NT comes close to be a 32 bit app
>>but even that uses 16 bit dlls !

>Only for running 16 bit Windows programs, I think.

Not sure about the history - but it would be efficient for lots of 16 bit
code to handle smaller data items like characters - why would any OS
writer limit one instruction to 32 bits when they could get more than one ?

Rgds

mike
Perth, Western Australia