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: <1991May2.104907.25975@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <1991Apr28.162045.15585@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <1991Apr30.112820.2451@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May2.012127.28779@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 10:49:07 GMT

In article <1991May2.012127.28779@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> dinda@cat53.cs.wisc.edu (Peter Dinda) writes:
> As a young gentleman who is a hop, skip, and jump away from both
> a BSEE and BSCS, who has programmed privately for DOS and DOS/Windows and
> commercially (for IBM) for multithreaded OS/2, I take offense at your
> personal insult.  Being a gentleman, I will not return it in kind.

That's OK, I'll take it as read. I think you've proved my point. You've so
little experience with operating systems other than UNIX or DOS and derivitives
that you don't understand what I'm getting at.

> Umm, Intel, built the processors that OS/2 and DOS run on.  I think they
> have the right to name what the modes are!

Sure they do, and they have every right to call their bank-select registers
"segment" registers, even though they're crippled by comparison with real
segments.

And I have every right to point out that using them that way indicates a
lack of experience.

> Unlike something like a 
> PDP-11 or VAX-11, 286 and 386 machines provide four levels of protection - 
> not just a user and priveleged mode.  

Yes, and the Honeywell/GE machines Multics ran on provided what... 6 levels?

> Sorry, the 8088 has a 16 bit ALU - most machines are characterized on 
> the basis of two things - the ALU and the Data Bus Widths.  The 8088 has
> an 8 bit Data Bus, but all internal processing is done 16 bits at a time.
> The register pairs can be used either as full 16 bit registers, or split
> in half to act as twice as many 8 bit registers.

Uh, huh. And the 6809 (clearly an 8-bit machine) has a 16-bit ALU and an
8-bit data bus, 16-bit registers and PC. That makes it every bit as 16-bit
as the 80x86 (x<2). The 1802 has an 8-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus, and 16 16-bit
registers. But all three of these chips have the same limitations in their
programming model: you can't point to more than 16 bits of address at a time.

> Sorry, note by use of the word "even" - the system calls for CP/M were never
> implemented as software interupts, now were they?

Hey, UNIX system calls have been implemented as everything from call-gates to
interrupts and illegal iunstruction traps. That doesn't mean that System V on
a 68000 and System V on an 80386 are different operating systems.

> And CP/M didn't provide 
> for Device Drivers did it?  You didn't have to patch DOS 1.x to add new
> devices!

You have to re-link the kernel to add new devices in UNIX. So I guess by your
logic it's an 8-bit O/S. After all, it's just the same as relinking CP/M (not
patching, unless your vendor ripped you off and didn't give you a copy of
BIOS.ASM).

> Ah, yes.  CP/M ran on something other than 8080 derivatives - good 
> urban legend.

You can buy a 68000-based CP/M box today: it's called the Atari ST.

> DOS stays around because its what users demand and buy.  If
> it were up to IBM and Microsoft, Intel based PCs would be using OS/2 right
> now.

Microsoft has abandoned OS/2, didn't you notice?

(OS/2: bigger than UNIX and does half as much. Would *you* buy half an O/S?)

> And with all your credentials you still have time to insult other readers
> of comp.sys.amiga.advocacy.  My My, you must be good.

There, I know you couldn't resist trading insults after all.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
