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 amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <7353@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 21:37:46 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.7353
Posted: Wed Dec 11 21:37:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 07:37:50 EST
References: <129@intelca> <4400130@uiucdcsb> <6185@utzoo.UUCP> <433@ecn-pc.UUCP> <434@ecn-pc.UUCP> <738@othervax.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 26
Keywords: 8080, 64k

In article <738@othervax.UUCP> ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) writes:
>The 386 segmentation registers do *not* decrease functionality or
>ease of use, as they did on the 8086.

You seem to have forgotten the 8086's parent. When compared to the
8080, segmentation did not decrease functionality or ease of use
either. If you wanted to only address 64K as you could on the 8080,
that was trivial. If you wanted 64K of data and 64K of code, that is
easy too. There was no decrease of functionality in the Intel family.

The 8086 is NOT a 32-bit microprocessor. Stop complaining that it
doesn't work well as one. Of course it doesn't, it isn't one.

If you guys keep comparing the 8086 to the 68000, a chip which came
out a few years later, then I'll compare the 6809 to the 80386.

Actually, I agreed with most of what Ray said, such as the following:

>The 386 segmentation registers give *additional* functionality over
>say, the 680x0.
-- 
 Even lefties have rights!

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com