Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!risky.ecs.umass.edu!umaecs!daly
From: daly@ecs.umass.edu (Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <13238.280ad858@ecs.umass.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 91 10:56:24 GMT
References: <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr11.001619.6952@holos0.uucp> <1991Apr11.073556.9556@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr14.163703.4175@jwt.UUCP>
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr14.163703.4175@jwt.UUCP>, john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes:
> 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)

No, 24 bits (in protected mode, and 20 in real mode) in what you can address
on a 286.  Really.  The "16-bitness" of a 286 refers to its data width.  The
286 can address the full 16 MB of it's address space without having to
multiplex it's address bus 16 bits at a time.  (Note: 16 bit address space is 
only 64K).  It also does not split the 24 bit address into 16/8.

-Bryon
daly@ecs.umass.edu