Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Extended Memory (and 80286)
Message-ID: <4704@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 88 17:55:04 GMT
References: <4710@bcsaic.UUCP> <6853@j.cc.purdue.edu> <1119@maccs.UUCP> <943@ima.ISC.COM>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Distribution: na
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 26
Keywords: ps2 model 30

>Confused? Wait until someone tries to explain how this fits with OS/2.

Actually, that's pretty easy.  OS/2 uses protected mode, and extended memory.
OS/2 doesn't (cannot?) use expanded memory at all.  Sorry, folks.

On a different subject, is anyone else hoping that OS/2 flops as strongly
as I am?  I don't have any particular prejudice against Microsoft:  what
I mean, is that I would hope that ANY operating system based on the
80286 processor would fail, since the architecture is exceedingly
brain-damaged (I thought the 8088 was bad until I looked at the 80286!)

I still don't see why IBM/Microsoft couldn't have based OS/2 on the
80386 instead.  Intel announced their P9 (80386 in a 80286 compatible
package) pretty early in the game:  IBM could have supported their
AT base by insisting that customers upgrade their processor before
upgrading their operating system.

Certainly, I believe that bringing out the PS/2 models 50 and 60 with
80286 processors was a serious mistake, wasn't it?  Couldn't they have
put slower memory and slow 80386 processors into them, and still been
able to differentiate the high-end model 80?
-- 
     john nelson

UUCP:            {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
ARPA (sort of):  talcott.harvard.edu!panda!teddy!jpn