Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ames!amdcad!pepsi!phil
From: phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 640K limit
Message-ID: <28808@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 15 Jan 90 20:50:00 GMT
References: <4668.25aed7f2@uwovax.uwo.ca> <1468@blackbird.afit.af.mil>
Sender: news@amdcad.AMD.COM
Reply-To: phil@pepsi.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 20

In article <1468@blackbird.afit.af.mil> ewilliam@galaxy-43.UUCP (Edward M. Williams) writes:
|
|IBM really messed things up when they designed the original PC (hindsight
|is wonderful!) - they didn't think that anyone would ever need more than
|640k of memory.  The original PC came with 64k!  They thought it would be 
|safe to put all the video screen memory mappings, ROMs, and all that 
|stuff up above the 640k line.
|
|Nowadays with memory capacities STARTING at 1M, the stuff between 640k and

Don't be ridiculous. The 8088 can't ADDRESS more than 1 mega. Just where
did you expect IBM to put the IO stuff?

The problem is all the lazy software houses who haven't bothered to move
to OS/2 and take advantage of the 16 meg protected mode even though the
286 can handle it just fine.

--
Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
Peace through strength.