Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!acorn!moncam!emmo
From: emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 640K limit
Summary: Missing the point
Message-ID: <403@marvin.moncam.co.uk>
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:33:51 GMT
References: <4668.25aed7f2@uwovax.uwo.ca| <1468@blackbird.afit.af.mil| <28874@amdcad.AMD.COM|
Organization: Monotype ADG, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 24

In article <28874@amdcad.AMD.COM|, phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
| In article <10344@saturn.ucsc.edu| ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) writes:
| |How would things have worked out if IBM had put this 384k block at the bottom
| |of the memory (0-384). That would have left no constrictions on upward
| |expansion except the 8088. And that problem would have been remedied by
| |the 80286.		-ted-
| 
| Ha ha. You have to run in protected mode to get more than 1 meg on the
| 286. As long as you're doing that, may as well go to OS/2.
| 

BUT IT NEED NOT HAVE BEEN THAT WAY.
Which other 2nd/3rd/4th generation processor has this b****y stupid 
'protected' mode? 

Please nobody mention the 68020's memory management, that's not at all
the same thing, nothing like it!

WHEN I can get the tools I use under DOS at the price they sell for for
DOS I'll give OS2 some thought. I hope I live that long...

I keep saying I'm going to drop this thread, but....

Dave.