Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mejac!orchard.la.locus.com!fafnir.la.locus.com!dana
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Segmented Architectures ( formerly Re: 48-bit computers)
Message-ID: <1991Mar29.011956.2801393@locus.com>
Date: 29 Mar 91 01:19:56 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.172325.10800@sj.nec.com>
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA
Lines: 33

In article <1991Mar27.172325.10800@sj.nec.com> koll@NECAM.tdd.sj.nec.com (Michael Goldman) writes:
>	Why Segmented Architectures Are Wrong

[edited for brevity]

>I will simply point out that segments add
>complexity to programming, which results in bugs, which take time to find
>and to fix, which delays time-to-market, which costs money.
>
>One can make theoretical arguments and claim that Intel's implementation
>was limited by current technology, but in practice, these limits are what
>we will always be facing.  The "Keep It Simple" vs. "Hey guys, let's put it in
>hardware!" battle will never end, and I'm not about to argue with all those
>Intel CPUs out there, but most programmers prefer simple architectures.
>
>Of course if you have a gazillion customer market, requiring a $1 solution,
>then the above yields to the virtues of a 80188.

   The segmented vs. linear addressing architecture argument is moot.
Changes in the 80386 allow one to effectively ignore the segments and
use linear addresses.

     System V/386 does this, AIX-PS/2 does this, etc.

  Further overzealous condemnation of Intel CPUs is pointless and
rhetorical, especially given that Intel has left the segmented architecture
behind in the 1980's. The 80860 and 80960 are, functionally speaking, not
segmented machines.

-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (213) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com		| reflect those of my employer	*