Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!hsdndev!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!bungi.com!news
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: Now, where was I?
Message-ID: <9012192132.AA02779@manatee.UUCP>
Date: 20 Dec 90 02:32:08 GMT
References: <<9012191836.AA00944@halsoft>>
Sender: news@daver.bungi.com
Lines: 25
Approved: news@daver.bungi.com



> >> - 80188/80186/V50/whatever: plenty of on-chip peripherals, but that
> >>   $#@ Intel architecture
> 
> Don't worry about that.  This has all been beaten into some semblance of
> order by a lot of very expensive programming talent at MicroSoft and
> Borland.  I've been working on a fairly large 80x86 programming project
> and I haven't had to deal with any of this stuff; it's all hidden by the
> C compiler.  I think your best bet is to use the cheapest version of
> the 80x86 family you can get - probably an 80186.
> 
> Stay away from the old 8080/Z80 architecture.  It doesn't support an
> efficient C compiler, so you'll have to write everything in assembler.

I absolutely agree !!!!   Even in a non-dos environment segmentation
is no big deal.  The only time its a pain is when an _application_
requires either code or data sizes beyond what the tools 
conviently support.  For a basic _controller_ segmentation is truely 
a non-issue, and in fact is a benefit (eg. logical addresses, relocation, 
etc).   

-- 
John Connin: manatee Orlando, Florida
         UUCP: {uunet,ge-dab,ucf-cs}!tarpit!tous!manatee!johnc