From: noemail@basdxcqvbe.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT)   
   "muta...@gmail.com"  wrote:   
      
   > 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?   
   >   
      
   Instead of different x86 addressing modes for 16-bit and 32-bit   
   instructions, the instructions could've been the same.  32-bit x86   
   instructions are clean and orthogonal. 16-bit x86 addressing modes are   
   a complete mess.   
      
   --   
   The Chinese have such difficulty with English ...  The word is not   
   "reunification" but "revenge".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)