The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Keith R. Williams
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:16:15 -0500
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
In article , email@example.com says...
> "Tom MacIntyre" wrote in
> message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > >
> > >To be fair, IBM's hardware set the memory limit.
> > >
> > But wasn't DOS still incapable of exceeding the 640k long after the
> > hardware support was there?
> That was mostly because of Intel's hardware goof. Their segmented
> memory made it necessary for any program of more than 64k to do a lot of
> address arithmetic, and that made it hard to migrate to a different
> system with more segments.
Not true. Programs larger than 64K were very easy to write (FAR
calls). Single *data* structures larger than 64K were somewhat more
complicated, but not all *that* difficult.
> DOS couldn't really have been designed with
> enough foresight to have been portable to the 286 memory model. Intel's
> data on the 8086 didn't say a word about planning for the segments
> becoming virtual, so the natural assumption was that consecutively
> numbered segments were consecutive.
I don't understand this at all! The biggest impediment was the hole in
the middle of the memory map (memory from 0A0000 - 0FFFFF) used for I/O
> In fact Intel encouraged that
> assumption when they explicitly stated that segments and offsets could
> be added different ways, for example the way 0040:017A = 0000:057A.
Sure, but hardly important to the issue at hand.
> Getting back to IBM's goofs, the original DOS made by a small company
> which sold it to MS, had 1 meg of RAM, because they used a little 8086
> system that could switch out the ROM! I don't know who made that
How are you going to "switch out" the hardware that was located in that
range? That couldn't have been a 100% ccompatable.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup