🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <423@omen.UUCP> caf@.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <13772@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>:In article <110@wldrdg.UUCP> tony@wldrdg.UUCP (Tony Andrews) writes:
>:>My favorite propaganda is the stuff Intel
>:>puts out about segmentation.
>:I think your opinions on segmentation are just opinions, and very
>:poorly informed ones at that. Certainly small segments are painful but
>:big enough segments are very useful. After all, if you really love
>:linear addressing so much, just declare a large segment and be done
>:with it. (this assumes segments which can support 32 bit addresses)
>
>Sure sounds like AMD has made some significant enhancements to the
>80286.  Please send me two of these miracle chips for my PC-AT's ASAP,
>I've run out of time trying to get all this neat net.sources software to
>fit within segments on the Intel 80286 chips in my machines.  Also, a
>compatible 287 chip would be nice. 
>
>P.S.: What S/W changes are needed to correct the segment size? 

You're complaining about 16 bit processors, not segmentation.  That's
like buying a Honda instead of a truck and then complaining it doesn't
carry pianos very well. No, 16 bit processors can't address more than
64Kbytes very well but they weren't intended to. If they were, Intel
wouldn't have introduced the 386. Which, by the way, still has
segments. But big ones. Large enough for Unix, finally.

-- 
 The VT220 keyboard is an <iS<o standard. That means the French can
 hate it as well as the Americans.

 <phil <ngai +1 408 749 5720
 <u<uC<p: <[ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra<]!amdcad!phil
 AR<pA<; amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com