Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!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: <1991Apr30.113840.2593@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 30 Apr 91 11:38:40 GMT References: <02J7020m07rC01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1991Apr26.221002.24745@sugar.hackercorp.com> <2brN02no07bc01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 27 In article <2brN02no07bc01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > As long as it is written for 64K or greater it is a 16bit OS. As another poster has noted, MS-DOS really isn't an O/S at all. But if you include "64K or greater" that makes TRS-DOS, Apple-DOS, CP/M, and so on 16-bitters. (hell, the Apple ROMS did include a 16-bit p-machine) > Multitasking has nothing to do with whether an OS is 8,16, or 32bits. If > you exclude the multitasking constraint MS-DOS is a 16 bit OS. If you exclude the passenger seats a motorcycle is a car, right? > You are confusing features of an OS with what it takes for one to be > functional. No, I'm not confusing anything at all. > >"32-bit O/S" written for memory >> 64K, sophissticated VM. > Actually 32 bits would require you to address 4 gigabytes of memory. ">>" means "much greater than". By your logic, an 8-bit O/S could only address 256 bytes, right? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .