Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 680x0 vs 80x86
Message-ID: <4671.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
Date: 22 Jun 91 15:38:26 GMT
References: <92@ryptyde.UUCP>
Organization: TAP, NZAmigaUG.
Lines: 24

Quoted from <92@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy):
> "Are you suggesting that the unified cache is a limitation designed to ensure
> MS-DOS compatibility?  How would a split cache break MS-DOS?"

> This probably has something to do with the fact that the 80x86 has
> general-purpose registers, as opposed to seperate address and data

    It's usually because if you have a split cache you break programs
    that use self-modifying code.

    This mightn't break MS-DOS itself, but the big PClone software
    companies (eg: Microsoft) aren't known for the production quality
    of their code.

    Also note that the address registers can be used to store data. I
    believe Microsoft did so with one of their Amiga products? Something
    like storing data in the top byte of an address register, on the
    assumption that only the low 24 bits are used for addressing
    purposes.

    Slick people, Microsoft.
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG.        jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***         "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo.          ***