Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!ilan343
From: ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why is DOS limited to 640K?
Message-ID: <1989Oct15.155033.4966@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 89 15:50:33 GMT
References: <8909270503.AA28536@euler.Berkeley.EDU> <10253@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 9

In article <10253@cbnews.ATT.COM> rock@cbnews.ATT.COM (Y. Rock Lee,55212,cb,1J312E,6148604774) writes:
>Why is a plain DOS limited to 640K memory?

I think a more direct question is why didn't Microsoft adopt an
official DOS extenter as soon as the ATs came out 5 years ago.
It would be compatible with the old DOS applications and would free
AT owners from DOS most serious limitation. After all this time the
286's are two (or three if you count RISC)  generations behind, and 
without an operating system.