Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: When will the 8088 die? Message-ID: Date: 3 Dec 90 15:06:47 GMT References: <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> <1990Dec3.024326.22956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 14 In article <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rspangle@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Froot Loop) writes: > I think it would make much more sense to make the 686 backwards > compatible only as far back as the 386. The 286 does not allow full > multitasking, etc. Um, what do you mean by this? Back in the early '80s I was using a multiuser development system that used a single 1802 (4 bit ALU) to serve up to 3 programmers with as little as 12K of RAM. In what way does the 80286, with hundreds of times the performance, not support full multitasking? If you're talking about 64K segments being a bad idea, I agree. But to get rid of them you'll have to dump the 80286 as well. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com