Win95 was a 32-bit OS, with a lot of 16-bit code for compatibility reasons. There was a fairly significant 16--to-32-bit thunking layer.
It was not dependent on DOS in the way that WFW was dependent on DOS, even though it contained more 16-bit code than its NT counterparts... -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:54:18 -0500, Dan DeStefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could anyone settle a bet for me? I would like to know if Windows 95 was a > 16 or 32-bit OS. One of us is saying that it was natively 32-bit, but ran > 16-bit apps in a VM, while the other one is saying the reverse: it was a > 16-bit OS that was capable of running 32-bit apps in a VM. > > > > Also, one person is saying that W95 required DOS (like Win3.1.1) and the > other is saying that, while built on DOS, DOS was not required and the OS > went above and beyond its DOS roots. > > > > If anyone can settle these issues and offer proof like links to Web pages > and such, we would be grateful. > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
