But it's hard to develop a flat memory model for a machine with an
(ugh!) segmented architecture. And the segmented architecture (8088)
was chosen over the competition (68000) because the engineers were in
control. They chose to stick with known reliable Intel 8 bit support
chips rather than unknown reliability 16 bit Motorola or Intel support
chips. Which is also why the PC used an 8088 rather than an 8086.
No system software guy would ever make the same decision.
Chuck Norcutt
Allan Mee wrote:
> Oddly enough I used to be a programmer writing for CP/M in the early 80's -
> it was a good OS (given it was designed for 8 bit processors with 64Kb or
> less of RAM). Had IBM gone for CPM86 or the even better MPM and maybe DR's
> GEM - it is possible that today's PCs would be considerably better (as it's
> likely that a 'flat' memory model would have been developed and used much
> earlier etc.
> Allan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|