Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!imuse!braaten!ed From: ed@braaten.UUCP (Ed Braaten) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: Intel (no)286, 386SX billboards Summary: OS/2 and the x86 family Keywords: 386SX Message-ID: <43@braaten.UUCP> Date: 24 Nov 89 19:52:47 GMT References: <6475@lynx.UUCP> <6964@ficc.uu.net> <17@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> Reply-To: ed@braaten.UUCP (Ed Braaten) Distribution: comp Organization: Home sweet home, Dachau, West Germany Lines: 26 In article <17@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> tommyd@caslon (Thomas J. Dimitri) writes: > .... The 386SX, >we believe, is an affordable solution to the 386 architecture, which I >believe is quite superior to the 286 architecture because of better >multi-tasking and virtual memory abilities... The 80286 represents the STONE AGE in CPU technology... > ..... OS/2, >I believe, must also have a 386/386SX to run... Wrong! That is the biggest problem with OS/2; it was designed specifically for the 16-bit, segmented-architecture of the 80286. No paging, no virtual 86 mode, no 4Gbyte segments... :-( You'll have to wait awhile until the developers at Microsoft finish OS/2, so it can use those things. But then, why wait - UNIX gives you that and more TODAY! (Couldn't resist... :-) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are mine and not those of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Internet: ed@imuse.intel.com | Lord', will enter the kingdom of heaven, EUnet: unido!imuse!ed | but only he who does the will of my Subnet: ed@braaten.UUCP | Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------