Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <1991Apr14.163703.4175@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 91 16:37:03 GMT
References: <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr11.001619.6952@holos0.uucp> <1991Apr11.073556.9556@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 9

In article <1991Apr11.073556.9556@agate.berkeley.edu> c60b-1eq@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:
>>But the point being made was that 16-bit addressing really cripples you.
>
>On a 286?  24 bits.

No, 16 bits is all you can address in one chunk.  That's what's really
crippling.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)