Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!jmerrill
From: jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Brain-dead 286 - summary
Message-ID: <4983@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 8 Mar 90 12:27:57 GMT
References: <8681@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> <29405@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 54

In article <29405@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@pepsi.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <8681@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> marknew@rosevax.UUCP (Mark Newman) writes:
>|From Raymond Chen (raymond@math.berkeley.edu):
>|   There is no way to switch from protceted mode to real mode on a 286.
>
>Of course not. What good is a protected mode if a random program
>can violate it?

The idea of a protected mode as I see it is not to keep programs from doing
anything -- what would be the point?  It was intended to keep 8086 programs
from getting out of line.  The 286's lack of a protected -> real switch is
not an obstacle to any 'random program'; observe the hack involving
resetting the chip.  Your 'random program' could do that just as easily as
send the protected -> real instruction to the 386.  You gain nothing by not
implementing a switch from protected to real modes.

>|   (WORD for WINDOWS already out) and the future WordPerfect for OS/2
>|   will run so much better on a 386/386SX than the 286.
>
>This is untrue. Word for Windows does not take advantage of the 386.
>Windows 3.0 will take advantage of the 286.

I think the issue is speed.  The 386 has a 32-bit bus; the 286 has a
16-bit.  For memory-intensive programs, this is important.

>|   So, it's not brain dead in the sense of being useless, but brain dead
>|   in the sense that it isn't what it could/should have been had things
>|   been done just a little bit different.
>
>Nonsense. Tell me specifically what you would have done differently
>from Intel? I bet you can't come up with anything.

I would have made it a 386.  Or a 486.  Or...

>|From Marc Louis Levinson (gt0159a@prism.gatech.edu):
>|   The 286 is not really brain dead. The problem is that nobody has
>|   ever properly taken advantage of its capabilities. The chip has
>|   available what is called protected mode, which allows advanced
>|   memory handling and multitasking. Chances are slim that you can ever
>|   find a useful DOS application to use this mode.
>
>At last, someone who knows what he's talking about.

So only people who share your opinions know what they are talking about?
Gee...how are you on politics?  Religion?

>A PC without DESQview is like Unix without ^Z.

And DESQview without a 386 is like Unix without bg.  How many of us have
EEMS boards?

--
Jason Merrill				jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
Disclaimer:  Feel free to ignore everything I say.