Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: 8-bit death Message-ID: <1991May1.120729.13618@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX References: <1991Apr28.203012.2793@kessner.denver.co.us> <1991Apr30.113402.2522@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May1.070516.3257@kessner.denver.co.us> Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 12:07:29 GMT In article <1991May1.070516.3257@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: > 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.) A 16-bit O/S is designed for the environment provided by 16-bit micros and minis. It takes advantage of the extra address space available to provide scheduling, memory management, device management, and so on. In a 16-bit O/S 90% of programs don't have to deal with the hardware directly for anything: the operating system provides the services it needs. An 8-bit O/S is designed mainly to provide the basic tools needed to load programs and manage files in the minimal space possible. Things like scheduling are irrelevent: there's no way you could run more than one functional program at a time in the 64K anyway. A 32-bit O/S provides even more hardware transparency than a 16-bit one. Demand Paged virtual memory hide the limits of RAM, networking hides the limits of the disk. The sophisticated memory management hardware on 32-bit processors allows all this to work. > 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. It's the 16-bit memory access register in the 8080 family. > 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). But I *do* equate Ultrix with UNIX. In fact, anything that provides the basic 35 system calls from V7 days is UNIX. > Facts, man-- just the facts. _WHY_ isnt it a 16 bit OS? See above. > 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? Because I don't agree with your definition. I look at the capabilities and programming model. Where the software was born, not where it lives now. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .