Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.os.development    |    Operating system development chatter    |    4,255 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 3,311 of 4,255    |
|    Joe Monk to All    |
|    Re: segmentation    |
|    12 Oct 22 19:09:39    |
      From: joemonk64@gmail.com              > On a modern CPU, what happened to real mode programs       > was not that they had performance problems, but that       > they simply stopped working one day with 64 bit       > operating systems, plus they were permanently       > constrained to 1 MB. I don't know what the 64 bit       > issue was, and I don't really care at the moment.       > I'm just interested in why there ever needed to       > be a 1 MB limit - the answer is, there didn't.              The reason for the 1MB limit is a physical one. The largest chip at the time       was a 40-pin DIP. Subtracting 20 address pins only leaves 20 other pins for       CPU control signals.              So, segmentation was a hack designed to allow a larger address space while       using parts that were available at the time.              All of the popular CPUs at that time .... 8080A, 1802, 6502, 6800, Z80, F8       were all packaged in 40 pin DIP packages.              The first larger CPU I'm aware of was the Z8000/MC68000. They were in 64 pin       packages that didnt exist at the time of the 8086/8088.              Also, Windows is based on Windows NT, which itself is based on the DEC VAX/VMS       kernel (the principal architect was Dave Cutler, who Microsoft hired away from       DEC). So the command processor in WinNT is not the same DOS as Windows 95.              Joe              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca