Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: ANOTHER 32-BIT MACHINE???
Message-ID: <5355@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 13:36:00 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5355
Posted: Wed Mar 27 13:36:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 13:36:00 EST
References: <9254@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <543@intelca.UUCP> <5337@utzoo.UUCP>, <1549@watcgl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 28

> > > 	... all I can say about the 386 is that it is a full 32 bit 
> > > microprocessor, (with four gigabyte segments) which is totally binary 
> > > compatible with the iAPX86 family.
> > 
> > That statement is self-contradictory.  Binary compatibility with the
> > 8086 is fundamentally incompatible with a full 32-bit architecture.
> 
>  why is it contradictory? the 386 could have a compatability mode
>  to execute iAPX86 programs (similar to vax compatability mode -
>  or does being able to run pdp-11 programs mean the vax isn't a
>  true 32 machine?).

When it's running in compatibility mode, the VAX is most assuredly not a
32-bit machine; it acts like a 16-bit machine, to wit the pdp11.  Or
rather, a pdp11 subset.

Besides, "totally binary compatible" doesn't sound like a compatibility
mode to me.  Much more likely, especially considering the source (Intel),
is that it's the same old sickening story of backward compatibility
with all previous mistakes, right back to the 4004.  (Really.  The new
x86 chips are 8086 compatible, the 8086 had a lot of 8080 compatibility,
the 8080 was source-compatible with the 8008, and the 8008 was pretty
much an 8-bit 4004.  Isn't it thrilling to know that you're programming
a machine descended from a souped-up calculator?  Such roots, such a
sense of history, such a feeling of nausea...)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry