Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space below 0x00000000`7ffe0000?

Re:Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space belo... by peteri on Sunday December 18, 2022 @07:58PM (#34046737)

Wikipedia says it was only commercially available for NT4, I do somewhere have the Dec Alpha Windows 2000 beta discs (It got killed very late in the beta).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space belo... by toast0 on Sunday December 18, 2022 @09:10PM (#34047438)

A friend of mine had an Alpha, and I was getting the Windows betas (I got 98se, 2000, and XP, and then nothing else). My friend was really happy to 'borrow' the win2k for alpha discs. IIRC, release candidates 1 and 2 had alpha discs, and then 3 and beyond didn't; but I might be off by one. I assume it would have shipped as part of the release if only Alpha was cancelled a couple months later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space belo... by p_l on Monday December 19, 2022 @12:40AM (#34048904)

IIRC every RC disk had alpha binaries, only the RTM and later doesn't - because Alpha getting canned was declared in the short window between last RC and RTM, in a rather abrupt manner to everyone involved on the project.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space belo... by toast0 on Monday December 19, 2022 @11:28AM (#34053971)

https://www.theregister.com/2000/12/27/win2k_for_alpha_alive...

Seems to indicate that the Release Candidate 3 builds for Alpha never made it out through official channels. I'm pretty sure beta and RC was one disc per flavor and architecture though: so x86 professional, x86 server, etc, and alpha pro/server/etc. A big bundle of discs would come from Redmond.

I know nt4 had all the archs on the release disc, but I don't think that was the plan for win2k

[ Parent | on HN ]