Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!rminnich
From: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is the Intel memory model safe from NO-ONE ?!?
Message-ID: <2411@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 6 May 88 13:22:32 GMT
References: <1806@obiwan.mips.COM> <2904@omepd> <353@cf-cm.UUCP>
Reply-To: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 21
Keywords: 386 intel memory protection management model segmented

In article <353@cf-cm.UUCP> mch@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Major Kano) writes:
   I would like, provided people can temporarily dispense with the apathy
that ensured that I only got one reply to my original posting, to hear a wide
range of views about this. I'm sure there must be people on the net who would
like to express opinions or read those of others.
---
   well, speaking as someone who spent some time at Burroughs, i can
say that i think segmentation is a Good Thing. Unfortunately, Intel
has single-handedly (i think) managed to give segmentation a bad name,
associating segmentation with stupid 16-bit limits, 5 different memory
models, and so on. In fact the 386 is the first time Intel actually
got segmentation right, just 10 years late. Don't expect to see 
anyone else use it anytime soon. 
   But having used segmented machines (done right, at Burroughs) and
non-segmented machines, i can say that i trust programs running
on segmented machines a whole lot more. And I trust C programs
running on non-segmented machines not-a-whit- just ask anybody
who knows about NULL pointers.
ron
-- 
ron (rminnich@udel.edu)