From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 3:14:37 AM UTC+10, Scott Lurndal wrote:   
      
   > >> The more I look at the 8086, the more I am happy   
   > >> that segmentation was the correct technical   
   > >> solution to cope with machines that still had a   
   > >> 16-bit processor and registers, but had more than   
   > >> 64k memory available to them. I just would have   
   > >> made the segment shift flexible instead of telling   
   > >> everyone that "4" was being set in stone.   
   > >   
   > >They would've been wiser to split a 32-bit address across two registers   
   > >instead of using a 4-bit shift and add. That would've allowed for an   
   > >easier transition to 32-bit.   
      
   [to Rod]   
      
   Care to elaborate on that?   
      
   printf("hello, world\n");   
      
   transitioned from 16-bit to 32-bit perfectly fine.   
      
   So what specifically is wrong with the 8086?   
      
   > Even in 1978, when the 8086 was launched, segementation was recognized   
   > as a poor choice for memory management.   
      
   Well I don't recognize that even in 2021. What am I missing?   
      
   Thanks. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)