Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 640K limit
Message-ID: <25b5c5b9@ralf>
Date: 18 Jan 90 12:33:45 GMT
Sender: ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science
Lines: 16
In-Reply-To: <10344@saturn.ucsc.edu>

In article <10344@saturn.ucsc.edu>, ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) wrote:
}How would things have worked out if IBM had put this 384k block at the bottom
}of the memory (0-384). That would have left no constrictions on upward
}expansion except the 8088. And that problem would have been remedied by
}the 80286.              -ted-

Not really, since to get past 1M on the 80826, you have to switch to protected
mode, in which the segment registers have a totally different interpretation.
Most software would have to have been rewritten, anyway.
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=- 412-268-3053 (school) -=- FAX: ask
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
"How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin              Disclaimer? I claimed something?
14. proof by importance:
    A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
    question.