Re: 80286 protected mode

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: 80286 protected mode
De : ggtgp (at) *nospam* yahoo.com (Brett)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 07. Oct 2024, 18:40:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <ve16dk$1q3ek$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:32:34 -0000 (UTC)
Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes: 
In article <2024Oct6.150415@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
 
I find it hard to believe that many customers would ask Intel
for something the 80286 protected mode with segments limited
to 64KB, and even if, that Intel would listen to them.  This
looks much more like an idee fixe to me that one or more of
the 286 project leaders had, and all customer input was made
to fit into this idea, or was ignored. 
 
Either half-remembered from older architectures, or re-invented and
considered viable a decade after the original inventors had learned
better. 
 
Here's another speculation: The 286 protected mode was what they
already had in mind when they built the 8086, but there were not
enough transistors to do it in the 8086, so they did real mode, and
in the 80286 they finally got around to it.  And the idea was (like
AFAIK in the iAPX432) to have one segment per object and per
procedure, i.e., the large memory model.  The smaller memory models
were possible, but not really intended.  The Huge memory model was
completely alien to protected mode, as was direct hardware access,
as was common on the IBM PC.  And computing with segment register
contents was also not intended.
 
If programmers had used the 8086 in the intended way, porting to
protected mode would have been easy, but the programmers used it in
other ways, and the protected mode flopped.
 
Would it have been differently if the 8086/8088 had already had
protected mode?  I think that having one segment per object would
have been too inefficient, and also that 8192 segments is not
enough for that kind of usage, given 640KB of RAM (not to mention
the 16MB that the 286 supported); and with 640KB having the
segments limited to 64KB is too restrictive for a number of
applications. 
 
I have for decades pointed out that the four bit offset of 8086
segments was planned obsolescence. An 8 bit offset with 16 megabytes
of address space would have kept the low end alive for too long in
Intels eyes. To control the market you need to drive complexity onto
the users, which weeds out licensed competition.
 
Everything Intel did drove needless patentable complexity into the
follow on CPUs.
 
You forget that Intel didn't and couldn't expect that 8088 would be
such stunning success. Not just that. According to Oral history they
didn't realize what they have in hands until 1983.

Today the 8088 is a joke microcontroller, that was not the case when it was
introduced. The 8088 was a major project with major profits, not some
afterthought.

Yes the success eventually dwarfed expectations, but that was a lightning
strike, the plan was in place and so the lightning strike could be taken
advantage of to build a monopoly, instead of the small walled fortress with
moat that was planned.

You saw what happened to the MC680x0 series that did not have a moat or a
good plan.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Apr 24 * Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)237Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Apr 24 `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)236David Brown
16 Apr 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
26 May 24  +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24  `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)233MitchAlsup1
1 Oct 24   `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)232Thomas Koenig
1 Oct 24    +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)225MitchAlsup1
2 Oct 24    i+* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)223Brett
3 Oct 24    ii`* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)222Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Oct 24    ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Brett
3 Oct 24    ii +- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24    ii `* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)219David Brown
3 Oct 24    ii  `* Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)218Anton Ertl
3 Oct 24    ii   +- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1David Brown
4 Oct 24    ii   +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)215Lawrence D'Oliveiro
4 Oct 24    ii   i+- Re: Byte ordering1Lynn Wheeler
4 Oct 24    ii   i+* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)211David Brown
4 Oct 24    ii   ii`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)210Anton Ertl
4 Oct 24    ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering5BGB
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering4MitchAlsup1
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i +* Re: Byte ordering2BGB
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i `- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii +* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)13Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)12Brett
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)11Anton Ertl
5 Oct 24    ii   ii i  `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)10Michael S
6 Oct 24    ii   ii i   +- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24    ii   ii i   `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)8Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i    `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i     `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)6Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i      `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)5Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       +* Re: Byte ordering2Stefan Monnier
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       i`- Re: Byte ordering1Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii i       `* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii i        `- Re: Byte ordering1Terje Mathisen
6 Oct 24    ii   ii `* Re: Byte ordering191David Brown
6 Oct 24    ii   ii  `* Re: Byte ordering190Anton Ertl
6 Oct 24    ii   ii   `* Re: Byte ordering189John Dallman
7 Oct 24    ii   ii    +* Re: Byte ordering20Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii    i`* Re: Byte ordering19John Dallman
9 Oct 24    ii   ii    i +- VMS/NT memory management (was: Byte ordering)1Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i +* Re: Byte ordering2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i i`- Re: Byte ordering1MitchAlsup1
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i `* Re: Byte ordering15Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  +* Re: Byte ordering3Michael S
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i+- Re: Byte ordering1John Dallman
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
15 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  +* Re: Byte ordering9John Dallman
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i+* Re: Byte ordering7George Neuner
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii`* Re: Byte ordering6Terje Mathisen
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii `* Re: Byte ordering5David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  +* Re: Byte ordering2George Neuner
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  i`- Re: Byte ordering1David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii  `* Re: clouds, not Byte ordering2John Levine
17 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  ii   `- Re: clouds, not Byte ordering1David Brown
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  i`- Re: Byte ordering1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
16 Oct 24    ii   ii    i  `* Re: Byte ordering2Paul A. Clayton
18 Oct 24    ii   ii    i   `- Re: Microkernels & Capabilities (was Re: Byte ordering)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
7 Oct 24    ii   ii    `* 80286 protected mode168Anton Ertl
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode5Lars Poulsen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode4Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `* Re: 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Terje Mathisen
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode3Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode2Michael S
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Brett
7 Oct 24    ii   ii     +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     +* Re: 80286 protected mode152MitchAlsup1
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i+* Re: 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii`* Re: 80286 protected mode3MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     ii `- Re: 80286 protected mode1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i`* Re: 80286 protected mode147Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     i +- Re: 80286 protected mode1Robert Finch
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i `* Re: 80286 protected mode145David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode79MitchAlsup1
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i`* Re: 80286 protected mode78David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i `* Re: 80286 protected mode77Stephen Fuld
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode2MitchAlsup1
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
10 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  +- Re: 80286 protected mode1David Brown
11 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode73Tim Rentsch
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i   `* Re: 80286 protected mode72Stefan Monnier
15 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    +* Re: 80286 protected mode30MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode25MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode13John Levine
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii+* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode7MitchAlsup1
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode6John Levine
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode5Thomas Koenig
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii  `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii   `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
22 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii    `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Tim Rentsch
22 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iiii     `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1George Neuner
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii+- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii`* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode4Paul A. Clayton
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii +- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1David Brown
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii `* Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    iii  `- Re: C and turtles, 80286 protected mode1Paul A. Clayton
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode7Thomas Koenig
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii+* Re: 80286 protected mode3George Neuner
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    ii`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i+* Re: 80286 protected mode3David Brown
17 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    i`- Re: 80286 protected mode1Tim Rentsch
16 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  i    `* Re: 80286 protected mode41David Brown
9 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  +* Re: 80286 protected mode51Thomas Koenig
13 Oct 24    ii   ii     i  `* Re: 80286 protected mode14Anton Ertl
8 Oct 24    ii   ii     `* Re: 80286 protected mode6John Levine
6 Oct 24    ii   i`* Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)2Michael S
4 Oct 24    ii   `- Re: Byte ordering (was: Whether something is RISC or not)1John Dallman
2 Oct 24    i`- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Thomas Koenig
2 Oct 24    +* Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)5David Schultz
3 Oct 24    `- Re: Whether something is RISC or not (Re: PDP-8 theology, not Concertina II Progress)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal