Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 July 6

= July 6 =

Free updating to Win 10

 * I have over 3 Gb to use up (in ≈2 hours!) before the end of my monthly download 'credit'. I may as well use it up on the Win 10 download, so I was wondering if anyone could comment on how fast this download would be? I have found 'standard' windows updates to be rather slow downloading. 220  of  Borg 11:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to download the upgrade files, then run them later? (It seems not, but I'm not certain) 220  of  Borg 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it's possible to download Windows 10 installer and delay installation until later. Note however that the free update requires installation before the end of the month. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks U|Nil Einne. Is the 'installer' that you are referring to the 'tool' at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10 ? 220  of  Borg 12:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The tool is probably the best method, especially as it reduces the chance you will need to download again if something goes wrong. However if you enable the update offer application (that's automatically offered over Windows update), if you're careful you can also download it there and choose when to install it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Viewing source coding
Is there a way to find out a software’s full coding? - like the way we find out a webpage source code...? -- Apostle (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In Your webbrowser, press STRG+U to view te source code of the webpage. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course a webbrowser cannot disassemble or decompile an executable program file. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "STRG"? Oh, I see. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes if it is Open-source software whose source code is made available with a license by which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone. Otherwise, a disassembler is a computer program that translates machine language into assembly language—the inverse operation to that of an assembler. A decompiler is a computer program that takes as input an executable file, and attempts to create a high level, compilable source file that does the same thing. It is therefore the opposite of a compiler, which takes a source file and makes an executable. However decompilers cannot perfectly reconstruct the original source code nor discover the original programmer's comments without which it can be difficult to deduce the working of a computer program. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks all. -- Apostle (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

x32, x64 and x86
What's the difference between the three entitled? - In simple terms please. -- Apostle (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, in practice, these days, "x86" means software that will run on a 32-bit desktop operating system (and probably also on a 64-bit desktop OS). "x64" means software that will only run on a 64-bit desktop OS. When talking about Linux, "x32" may mean another type of 64-bit-only executable (using the x32 ABI). Otherwise, it's probably the same as x86. -- BenRG (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * x86 is a series of CPUs. x86 in software installers means the 32 bit version, sometimes described as x32. x64 describes the 64 bit versions of never (~2004) CPUs, made for 64 bit architecture, also compatible with 32 bit instructions. 64 bit can address, more the 4 GB of memory. As the x64 CPUs are stil compatible to 32 bit, 32 bit software can be executed un the system, but least 4 GB RAM, only. Using a 64 bit Windows, the Memory can be addresses and 32 bit software is executable on a 64 bit windows, no 64 bit software on 32 bit Windows. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Watch out for those "never CPUs". Never work, never fast enough, etc. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * x86 is based on the 8086 architecture, which was originally 16-bit. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And the Intel 8086 was in turn based on the Intel 8008, which was an 8-bit processor. CodeTalker (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The 8086 wasn't based on any earlier processor. It had very little in common with the 8085, let alone the 8008. The Intel 8086 article says that it was marketed as "source compatible", but that just means that the 8086 had enough registers and address space to support mechanical translation of code from simpler processors. It wasn't compatible with them at any level. -- BenRG (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks all. -- Apostle (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)