Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!nosc!dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas
From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: 680x0 vs 80x86
Message-ID: <14266@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 25 Jun 91 17:58:15 GMT
References: <92@ryptyde.UUCP> <4671.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <1154@stewart.UUCP>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 21

In article <1154@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:
>>    It's usually because if you have a split cache you break programs
>>    that use self-modifying code.

>Doubtful, John, since every OS in existence treats code as data when it
>loads it into memory for execution.

Hmm, and I thought some of your other points were good, but now I know you
were just smoking something :)

But seriously, any OS that has to worry about loading code and cache
consistency has special code to deal with that.

DOS programs, on the other hand, don't, because they've never had to.
These programs could be rewritten, but when you have 40-60 million
DOS users, you don't tend to go out and break something like that.

David Navas                                   navas@cory.berkeley.edu
	2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus