Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!isis!onecom!wldrdg!tony
From: tony@wldrdg.UUCP (Tony Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: comp.sys.intel
Message-ID: <111@wldrdg.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Nov-86 10:44:14 EST
Article-I.D.: wldrdg.111
Posted: Mon Nov 17 10:44:14 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 09:12:25 EST
References: <110@wldrdg.UUCP> <13772@amdcad.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wildridge Consulting,  Boulder, CO
Lines: 32

> I think your opinions on segmentation are just opinions, and very
> poorly informed ones at that. Certainly small segments are painful but
> big enough segments are very useful. After all, if you really love
> linear addressing so much, just declare a large segment and be done
> with it. (this assumes segments which can support 32 bit addresses)
> 
>  <phil <ngai +1 408 749 5720
>  <u<uC<p: <[ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra<]!amdcad!phil
>  AR<pA<; amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com

Okay, so I over-generalized slightly. The 386 is a reasonable chip
and will support UNIX quite nicely. But the SVR3 port to the 386
just makes all UNIX processes small model, which is effectively
the same address space as a 32032 or 68K. The segmentation isn't
really used other than to support 286 binaries.

Sure, if you have big enough segments, they can be ignored and
everything works nicely. But if they're small enough that I have
to support multiple memory models, then forget it. And last year's
big segments tend to become this year's small segments. I think
that's what happened with the 286.

I really didn't want to dredge up this whole war again. Honest.

Of course, my opinions are just opinions and so are yours and Intel's.
That's not the point. I just couldn't stand such a blatant example
of the pot calling the kettle black.

Tony Andrews
...!ihnp4!onecom!wldrdg!tony
Wildridge Consulting, Inc.
Boulder, CO