Exists of version for win98 to 64 bit?

hmm, it would be interesting if it were, it would change the commonly used (denigratory) definition of Win9x:



However, the answer is no, as said Win9x is not even 32-bit, let alone 64.

jaclaz

It would be possible to create a patch for win98 that lets to function at 64 bit; can we interview whit the kernel, adding the functions necessaries?

Yep, it is possible, but as I see it, besides it actually meaning to rewrite the entire Operating System from scratch, you'll have to add rewriting all drivers, otherwise you won't have any real benefit from 64 bit computing......

jaclaz

Just because it uses DOS for bootstrapping doesn't mean it isn't 32-bit. It uses its own (32-bit) routines for just about everything.

What do you need 64-bit for anyway?

We still haven't fully realised the capabilities of the 32-bit architecture except in esoteric applications involving supercomputers (most SCs are actually still 32-bit architecture); indeed, many have said that the 16-bit architecture hasn't yet reached full potential!

Programmers are just getting worse, writing less efficient code that takes more RAM and CPU cycles and thinking that the hardware will "compensate" for that.

Hmmm...don't you have to replace the Main kernel as well as every aspect of the core system?If you do that its bye bye windows 98

But I don't think you can do that

If it's a 32 bits architecture on a 16 bits core... why can't we make it a 64 bits architeecture on a 16 bits core?

It would mean a complete rewrite, a lot of our hardware would not support it ( a lot of time and effort is going to be needed to support new device drivers for new hardware without rewriting older ones). As already mentioned our existing dword systems can support upto 4 gig of virtual address space, more than enough for efficiently coded programs to run on for donkeys years to come.
And finally even if all the above were done not many programmers will be writing software to exploit using a 64bit 9x system

BTW, Windows Vista 32-bit edition supports up to 128 GB of physical memory: http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/0...erInWindows.ppt

At present, there is almost no use even for Windows XP x64 edition.

Petr

Quite useless considering that even the 80386 of nearly 20 years ago could address 4GB of memory, yet no 386 motherboard I know of (maybe now - fast, i.e. few hundred MHz 386s are still being produced by Intel and used in embedded systems) can take that much RAM.

All CPUs since Pentium Pro(?) had PAE and could support up to 64Gb addressable memory using 36-bit address bus.

Have any of these physical memory limits been reached? Not since the 16M limit of the 286. Is there any point in extending the address space further? No. 64-bit processing? No.