Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 12/01/2025 12:07, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-01-12, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
 

    The 8086 would have been better, but the extra wiring
    apparently would have pushed up the price too much
    according to some old interview with an IBM guy.
    They didn't KNOW it would be super-successful, so they
    kinda hedged their bets, split the diff. 640k banks
    were a hell of a lot better than 64k banks.

 The 64K barrier was alive and well on the 8086/8.
I wrote a lot of horrible code to deal with large arrays.
Then there were all the memory models: tiny, small, large,
huge... yuck.

Well most of my code ran in 64k.  Ultimately you could use large models - the compiler took care of all that crap if you did.
IIRC it all vanished as an issue with te 386...
"he ability for a 386 to be set up to act like it had a flat memory model in protected mode despite the fact that it uses a segmented memory model in all modes was arguably the most important feature change for the x86 processor family until AMD released the x86-64 in 2003"

 

    The instructions for the 8088 were "familiar" to
    anyone who did the 8008/8080 and not TOO far
    from Z-80 sensibility - so I think that cinched Intel
    as the maker. WISH they'd used the 68000s. Ever
    see the Sage boxes ... gone alas before I could
    afford one .......

 I got into the Amiga and enjoyed the 68000 that way.
 

I coded Z80, 8088 and 6809 in my time. In assembler.
Once the 386 came in it was simply a matter of using 'C' everywhere. and let thecompiler sort out the mess.
--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken