Re: Segmentation in real mode

From: Annie (me_at_privcy.net)
Date: 03/12/05

  • Next message: Tom: "Re: Segmentation in real mode" 
    Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:47:20 +0000 (UTC)

    <html>
    <pre>
    On 2005-03-12 BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com said:

    > [ ... snip ... ]
    >
    > My "best guess" as to why Intel chose this scheme - which is a
    > bit "brain-dead" in many regards - is to remember one other
    > small but significant fact: CPUs typically _weren't_ in "CPU
    > families" at this time...the 8086 is _similar_ to their previous
    > 4004 chip, for example...
                                                 _____
          [*sigh*] Beth, you're talking ((( `\
          out of your lower orifice again. _ _`\ )
                                                (^ ) )
          Intel "chose this scheme" so that ~-( )
          its 16-bit CPU would be reason- _'((,,,)))
          ably comfortable and familiar ,-' \_/ `\
          architecturally to the user ( , |
          base of its prevalent and highly `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
          successful line (family?) of 8-bit \ / | |
          chips...and thereby facilitate a =()=: / ,' aa
          relatively easy port of existing
          8-bit software to the 16-bit CPU.

          BTW, the 4004 was a 4-bit chip (duh!).

          The succession was:

          8008 -> 8080 -> 8085 -> 8086 -> 8088 -> 80186 -> etc.
           |_______|_______| |_______|_______|
                   | |
                 8-bit 16-bit

          Do you just make this stuff up on the spur of the moment,
          or what? Hehe!
    </pre>
    </html>

  • Next message: Tom: "Re: Segmentation in real mode"