Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!ndsuvm1!mtus5!ythprgdb
From: YTHPRGDB@MTUS5.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Return of the processor wars, part II
Message-ID: <90010.202827YTHPRGDB@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: 11 Jan 90 01:28:27 GMT
References: <1646@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ.
Lines: 32

In article <1646@bnr-rsc.UUCP>, schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) says:
[...]
>  f) The Intel x86 family is object code compatible.
>

Question:  Are the 286 & 386 object-code compatible in their
respective "protected" modes?  I got the impression that this
only applied to the "real 8086" and "virtual 8086" modes.

Many of the neat added abilities of the 286 and
386 (including addressing beyond 1M of memory) are only available
in the "protected" modes of operation.  IMHO, Intel's mode-based
emulation adds just as much complexity as (if not more than) the
problems with MOV SR in the 68K family.

Granted, Intel did a very nice thing in giving us the "virtual 8086"
mode to allow multiple 8086-based programs (DOS-based?) to execute
concurrently.  This seems to be an excellent idea, but why then
does OS/2 only allow one DOS task (in the compatibility box)?

[...]
>--
>Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
>BNR                 UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
>(613) 763-2831               ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185
>Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
>
>
-------
 -- Noel Maddy                          Bitnet: ythprgdb@mtus5
'...moore input...'                     Snail: 210 Vivian
      - Number Johnny Five                     Hancock, MI  49930