Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: 8-bit death (was Re: What the heck IS "Interactive TV"?) Message-ID: <1991Apr26.220644.24654@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 26 Apr 91 22:06:44 GMT References: <1991Apr22.021234.23673@neon.Stanford.EDU> <1991Apr22.101854.3301@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Apr22.175525.2785@neon.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 27 In article <1991Apr22.175525.2785@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > >Well, there was also the 128K available memory limit, > Yes, but this was a hardware limit, not an OS limit. Yeh, but that hardware limit hurt the OS (32K segments? on a 68000?) > >Plus, didn't a whole > >bunch of stuff stop working when you went over 1M... and that's only 20 bits. > > As far as I know, Microsoft Excel 1.0 was the only program which > exhibited this behaviour (if you put it above the first 1MB of > memory). I don't think so. They had a number of titles that had problems when memory went over 1M. I can't list them, but I was quite interested in the Mac at the time (I still think it's the best machine for computerphobes) and I was dismayed at the lists that showed up in magazines. > Yes, but the OS was not an 8-bit OS - only the particular > implementation of the hardware at that time. Well, it was written to fit into the same constraints. It looked a lot like CP/M to me. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .