Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: 8-bit death
Message-ID: <1991May1.120729.13618@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <1991Apr28.203012.2793@kessner.denver.co.us> <1991Apr30.113402.2522@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May1.070516.3257@kessner.denver.co.us>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 12:07:29 GMT

In article <1991May1.070516.3257@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes:
> Then _YOU_ define your view of a 16 bit OS.  (I missed the first few
> messages in this thread, so I probably didn't read it if you posted it.)

A 16-bit O/S is designed for the environment provided by 16-bit micros and
minis. It takes advantage of the extra address space available to provide
scheduling, memory management, device management, and so on. In a 16-bit
O/S 90% of programs don't have to deal with the hardware directly for
anything: the operating system provides the services it needs.

An 8-bit O/S is designed mainly to provide the basic tools needed to load
programs and manage files in the minimal space possible. Things like scheduling
are irrelevent: there's no way you could run more than one functional program
at a time in the 64K anyway.

A 32-bit O/S provides even more hardware transparency than a 16-bit one. Demand
Paged virtual memory hide the limits of RAM, networking hides the limits of the
disk. The sophisticated memory management hardware on 32-bit processors allows
all this to work.

> I guess I do better on ink-blots...  Considering I have no idea what you are
> talking about here, I havn't the foggiest idea what HL is.

It's the 16-bit memory access register in the 8080 family.

> I know that it was initally based on CP/M...  But it is not CP/M.  It's
> easy to prove.  Look at the calls to DOS/BIOS-- they are specific to the
> 80x86's registers/segments.  There is an obvious difference that would make
> MS-DOS and CP/M in the same family-- but not twins.  There is enough differnce
> to not equate the two (like how you don't equate Ultrix with UNIX).

But I *do* equate Ultrix with UNIX. In fact, anything that provides the basic
35 system calls from V7 days is UNIX.

> Facts, man-- just the facts.  _WHY_ isnt it a 16 bit OS?

See above.

> You know what I think it is 16 bits...  You agree with the facts I provide
> (ie, 16 bit registers)...  But you don't come to the same conclusion.  Why?

Because I don't agree with your definition. I look at the capabilities and
programming model. Where the software was born, not where it lives now.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
