Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site well.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!topaz!lll-crg!well!farren
From: farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products (yet more 8086 sucks debate)
Message-ID: <368@well.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 03:58:16 EST
Article-I.D.: well.368
Posted: Thu Dec 19 03:58:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 00:38:27 EST
References: <133@daisy.UUCP> <97800013@ima.UUCP> <464@looking.UUCP> <354@well.UUCP>
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 20
Keywords: IBM, 8086, 8088, Intel, 80286
Xref: watmath net.micro:13181 net.arch:2330
Summary: Open mouth, insert foot...

In article <351@well.UUCP> I wrote:
>In article <154@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>> It could have been done with no work from the compiler if Intel had
>> put the bits in a reasonable place.  A full pointer has a selector and
>> an offset.  Here is what they look like:
>>
>
>	Huh?  Wha?  Am I awake yet?

	Well, the answer is, of course, no.  If I had been paying more
attention (or had bothered to look at the previous articles), I would
have realized that the subject wasn't 8086 segments, but 80286 protected
mode, as many have been kind enough to point out. My apologies to all - 
I'll try and see that it doesn't happen again.
 
-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
           USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618