Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!csn!kessner!david From: david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: 8-bit death Message-ID: <1991May1.070516.3257@kessner.denver.co.us> Date: 1 May 91 07:05:16 GMT References: <1991Apr28.122439.13393@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Apr28.203012.2793@kessner.denver.co.us> <1991Apr30.113402.2522@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Kessner, Inc. Lines: 58 Sorry, Peter, for posting twice... I replied to a previous post of yours before this one (intended for me) came through... In article <1991Apr30.113402.2522@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Now, I will be the _LAST_ person to extole the virtues of MS-DOS, but lets >> get our facts straight, will we? > >OK, you go read the message I just wrote to Peter Dinda. You been eating up >the propoganda just fine too... I did. Wasn't impressed. >> MS-DOS is a _16_ bit operating system. While it may be similar to CPM I >> doubt that it is a "staight copy" since CPM was strictly a 8 bit OS, and >> MS-DOS clearly has support for the _16_BIT_REGISTERS_ that the CPU has. > >Oh right! The 16-bit registers! I'd suggest you look at the 1802, a 4/8 bit >microprocessor that comes with 16 16-bit registers. Then _YOU_ define your view of a 16 bit OS. (I missed the first few messages in this thread, so I probably didn't read it if you posted it.) >For that matter, what do you think HL is? I guess I do better on ink-blots... Considering I have no idea what you are talking about here, I havn't the foggiest idea what HL is. >As for being a copy of CP/M... that was not only intentional it was stated >as a virtue of the machine by IBM back in 1981. All us CP/M hackers were >puking, but the business community ate it up by god. I know that it was initally based on CP/M... But it is not CP/M. It's easy to prove. Look at the calls to DOS/BIOS-- they are specific to the 80x86's registers/segments. There is an obvious difference that would make MS-DOS and CP/M in the same family-- but not twins. There is enough differnce to not equate the two (like how you don't equate Ultrix with UNIX). >> That is _my_ definition of a 16 bit operating system-- the number of bits >> in the registers that it actually _uses_. > >Fine. Then I've *written* a 16-bit operating system. So I'm qualified to >speak on such issues, and MS-DOS isn't one. Facts, man-- just the facts. _WHY_ isnt it a 16 bit OS? You know what I think it is 16 bits... You agree with the facts I provide (ie, 16 bit registers)... But you don't come to the same conclusion. Why? >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >. -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame? | } while( jones);