Christian Groessler wrote:
> On 3/15/21 10:47 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Lu, 15 mar 21, 20:24:56, Sven Hartge wrote:
>>> (I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers
>>> in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower
>>> memory so the IPX
On 3/15/21 10:47 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 20:24:56, Sven Hartge wrote:
(I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers
in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower
memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.)
For me it
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 20:24:56, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> (I still vividly remember using memmaker and manual ordering the drivers
> in config.sys and autoexec.bat to shave another 2KB from the lower
> memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.)
For me it was Warcraft :)
And for some game
Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980.
> I can. It would have cost as much as a mainframe to make full use of it.
I don't say to put it in, only to have a flat 32bit address range.
Just like the current
>> No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
>> 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
>> memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make
>> a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the
>> whole
On Monday 15 March 2021 12:40:51 John Hasler wrote:
> Gene writes:
> > No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
> > 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
> > memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could
> > make a
Gene writes:
> No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
> 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
> memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make
> a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the
>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:53:46PM +, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 Sven Hartge wrote:
Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980.
I can. It would have cost as much as a mainframe to make full use of it.
More. Memory was often the largest line item back then,
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
> >> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
> >> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
> >>
>> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
>> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
>> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
>> competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface with
>>
Gene writes:
> That, IIRC was a new, super shiny, thing from zilog. No experience
> with it, but if it was as unreliable as the z-80, was, I'm not sorry
> it failed. The Z-80 had an instruction that swapped the
> foregrund/background register sets. But it only worked on odd hours
> of the day.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:02:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> Snerk. We all did that back in the day, Tomas. that and similar magazines
> were this 8th grade graduates electronics education. Do they still exist
> today? Retired now, so the subs expired.
Some of them:
On Monday 15 March 2021 09:53:40 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:31:05AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Another rumor I
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:31:05AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
> > > in 1980,
On Monday 15 March 2021 08:53:46 Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100
>
> Sven Hartge wrote:
> > to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> > >> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM
> > >> PC in 1980, opted
On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
> > in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble
> > M68k CPU because
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100
Sven Hartge wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> >> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
> >> in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also
> >>
>
>
> No stupid memory segmentation,
>
IMHO segmentation was a good idea originally.
You could have separate segments for code and data and since 286 it is
possible to protect them (AFAIK segments were also used to separate
user-space and kernel-space)
But with the advent of virtual memory (386),
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:34:42PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
[...]
> Having had a 68k would have been awesome. No stupid memory segmentation,
So were Z8000, NS32K and many others. The horrible segmentation thing on
the '86 were the tribute to backward compatibility, which is the price
you pay
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
>> in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble
>> M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
[...]
> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
> competition
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> For the others: they where either on board from the start (like HP),
>> where already dead (like DEC/Compaq) or slipping into the embedded
>> market (like MIPS).
> MIPS had its chance to become the unified
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
[...]
> For the others: they where either on board from the start (like HP),
> where already dead (like DEC/Compaq) or slipping into the embedded
> market (like MIPS).
MIPS had its chance to become the unified architecture for
23 matches
Mail list logo
