clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (10/23/85)
I think my orginal posting got lost in the net bit bucket in the sky.
If this material is repeated my apologies.
Wed. Oct 16, Intel announced the 80386 the newest 32-bit microprocessor along
with an entire family of 386 products. While the entire list of press releases
and Intel announcements would take too long to enumurate I thought I would
highlight some of the more important portions of the 80386 introduction.
The introduction consisted of speeches by Intel executives and two
demonstrations of the 80386's incrediable functionality. An Intel 310
system was shown running Xenix 286 uith a 386 used in place of the 286.
This demonstration was followed by Lotus, SideKick, and Flight Simulator
all running on a PC-AT using an 386 to 286 adaptor board. Flight Simulator
proved to be the hit of the show since it is the acid test of
IBM PC compatibility, and looks great on a 8' x 10' screen.
Additional demos included RMX-286 (Intel's real time OS) running
at 16 MHz on a 386/20 board, and Daisy Systems CAD tools for board and
system level designs using a real 386.
In addition to the 80386 the following products were also introduced
386/20 A 386 based MultiBus I board featuring a 64K byte cache
and a High Speed 32-bit memory interface supporting up to
16 megabytes of dual-port system memory.
386/100 A MULTIBUS II single board computer with the same memory
configurations as the 386/20 with special purpose message
passing silicon.
PSCOPE 386 A ROM based high-level software debugger for the 80386.
ICE 386 An In Circuit Emulator which provides full speed emulation of
the 80386. It provides an excellent tool for hardware and
software integration.
Languages The following languages were announced for the 80386
ASM, C, PLM, FORTRAN, and ADA
Software Tools A complete system of software tools including a
Builder, Binder,Mapper, Librarian, and numerics
support libraries.
All software tools are orginally hosted on Xenix 286 based systems
(in particular a Xenix 286/310 microcomputer) Hosting of these tools
on other computers is planned for the near future.
Weitek and Intel also announced an agreement under which both companies will
develop and market a chip that provides an interface between the 80386 and
Weitek's 1164 and 1165 64-bit floating point processors. The Weitek chip
set provides floating-point performance in excess of 2 MFLOPS. Systems
using the 80386 when combined with the Weitek Chip set will offer
performance of 4 million Whetstones per second.
Finally, AT&T and Intel announced the signing of a contract for porting
of the Unix* System V Operating System to the 80386. The port is one
of the first agreements for the Networking features of the System V operating
system, and is a continuation of the AT&T-Intel partnership to bring state of
the art Unix System V technology to Intel microprocessors.
Additional information is available on these products by contacting your
local Intel sales office or by calling toll free
(800) 538-1876, ask for operator 386 and receive a packet of information
about the 80386 (data sheet, product announcements etc).
I am also posting a fairly short description of the 80386 itself.
If you have additional comments you may contact me via e-mail. If
time allows I will attempt to answer other questions. However I
suspect most answers will be to call the above number.
Clif Purkiser
386 Product Marketing
{amd hplaps pur-ee}!intelca
Unix is a trademark of AT&T
ICE-386, PSCOPE-386, MULTIBUS, RMX are all trademarks of Intelandrew@amdahl.UUCP (Andrew Sharpe) (10/27/85)
> Finally, AT&T and Intel announced the signing of a contract for porting > of the Unix* System V Operating System to the 80386. The port is one > of the first agreements for the Networking features of the System V operating > system, and is a continuation of the AT&T-Intel partnership to bring state of > the art Unix System V technology to Intel microprocessors. Well, I'm curious. Who's going to do this port? It won't be Intel, because they didn't do the 286 port; DRI did. Might it be Interactive Systems, who took over maintenance from DRI? (DRI wasn't interested in maintaining it themselves, or I would still be working there). -- Andrew Sharpe ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!andrew ***************************************** ___________ * The views expressed above are solely * ,/| _____ | * my cat's opinions, and do not reflect * | | |___ /| | * the views of the employees, nor the * | | | | | | * management, of Amdahl Corporation. * | | | | | | * * | | |__| | | * * | | / | | ,| * * | ~~~~~ |/ ***************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (10/27/85)
> Wed. Oct 16, Intel announced the 80386 the newest 32-bit microprocessor along > with an entire family of 386 products. While the entire list of press releases > and Intel announcements would take too long to enumurate I thought I would > highlight some of the more important portions of the 80386 introduction. > BLAH BLAH BLAH etc etc I object to this press release hype here in net.micro. This seems to me to be a DEFINITE NO-NO for this newgroup. This is not technical data it is corporate back-patting. Please don't lower this newsgroup to this level!!!!!!! If this needs to be on the net, there are better places for it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/28/85)
While I think a better place for the long text might have been in mod.newprod, I definitely think that the capabilities of the 386 are a fit subject for these forums. And it's hard to describe the product you've been sweating over for a year or three without a little hype getting in there -- as I've demonstrated to you-all before :-}. Keep up the info flow!
mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (10/28/85)
In article <392@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: >I object to this press release hype here in net.micro. This seems to me to be >a DEFINITE NO-NO for this newgroup. This is not technical data it is corporate >back-patting. Please don't lower this newsgroup to this level!!!!!!! If this >needs to be on the net, there are better places for it. Well now I enjoyed the posting very much! a) I appreciate having the information b) I like hearing it from people so close to the project c) The article was very readable as well as being worth reading. There isn't much on USENET that you can say that about. My only objection was that I got the announcement twice. I despise Intel architectures and segments and groups and classes. But I still was very happy to send a note of congratulations and good luck to the project manager. It was kind of him to share a little of his team's celebration with us! Hey, we might be spending a lot of time writing for his damn chip. It's nice to hear about it from the horse's mouth, as early as we did. -- Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development {ptsfa,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!kepler!mojo
freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman) (10/29/85)
[] >> Wed. Oct 16, Intel announced the 80386 the newest 32-bit microprocessor along >> with ... > BLAH BLAH BLAH etc etc >I object to this press release hype here in net.micro. I think announcements of new chips are appropriate here, particularly when they are related to topics of past controversy. People who enjoy feuding as much as we seem to should welcome more grist for our mill. :-) -- Jay Reynolds Freeman (Schlumberger Palo Alto Research)(canonical disclaimer)
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/30/85)
> I object to this press release hype here in net.micro. This seems to me to be > a DEFINITE NO-NO for this newgroup. This is not technical data it is corporate > back-patting. Please don't lower this newsgroup to this level!!!!!!! If this > needs to be on the net, there are better places for it. I posted a (mildly critical) followup to the 386 announcement before I encountered this (not so mild) response. I went back and re-read the parent article. I also realized that I'd seen info about the 386 in a glossy trade [rm]ag at least a week before the article appeared in net.arch. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the assessment above--but I'd still be happy if we could pry some substantive information from Intel instead of chasing them away completely. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (10/30/85)
<>
For those who haven't received their '386 info packets yet, a nice
feature that I wish all chips would include:
4 hardware breakpoint registers!! These registers will break not only
on execution, but also on data access to any of the defined addresses.
Oh boy! Software only 'ICE' features. What will they think up next?
:-)
--
Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus
Development Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner
{genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner
{cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner
talcott!sesame!slerner@harvard.ARPA dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) (10/31/85)
Some marketing guy from Intel writes: > > Wed. Oct 16, Intel announced the 80386 the newest 32-bit microprocessor along > with an entire family of 386 products. While the entire list of press releases > and Intel announcements would take too long to enumurate I thought I would > highlight some of the more important portions of the 80386 introduction. > > The introduction consisted of speeches by Intel executives and two > demonstrations of the 80386's incrediable functionality. An Intel 310 ^^^^^^^^^^^ Wow. Really? And I supposed this is an unbiased opinion too. > blah blah blah... > > Additional information is available on these products by contacting your > local Intel sales office or by calling toll free > > (800) 538-1876, ask for operator 386 and receive a packet of information > about the 80386 (data sheet, product announcements etc). > > Clif Purkiser > 386 Product Marketing > {amd hplaps pur-ee}!intelca > > Unix is a trademark of AT&T > ICE-386, PSCOPE-386, MULTIBUS, RMX are all trademarks of Intel Hey dude, gimme a break. If I wanted marketing propaganda garbage, I'd call my local Intel office. This crap doesn't belong here. Just because you don't have your own newsgroup doesn't mean you can litter net.micro and net.arch with marketing verbage. -- David Hinnant SCI Systems, Inc. {decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh
dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) (10/31/85)
> While I think a better place for the long text might have been in mod.newprod, > I definitely think that the capabilities of the 386 are a fit subject for > these forums. And it's hard to describe the product you've been sweating > over for a year or three without a little hype getting in there -- as I've > demonstrated to you-all before :-}. > > Keep up the info flow! I too appreciate information, but I don't want marketing glossies coming out of my CRT screen too! I don't understand what all the furor over the 386 is. I fail to see why anyone would 'sweat' over the 386 unless they knew they HAD to use it on their next project. What can it do that the 68020 can't do better? -- David Hinnant SCI Systems, Inc. {decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh
mark@tove.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (10/31/85)
I was glad to read about the 386 here. It was the first information other
than a mention I had seen. Better would have been more info and less hype,
but lots worse would have been no posting at all. On balance I'd say its
better to have this info than not.
-mark
--
Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (11/01/85)
The 386 announcement on the net was not by itself objectionable, indeed I enjoyed the obvious enthusiasm for a "job well done" (we hope) by the poster. A new processor product announcement is obviously of general interest to the net readership, both Intelites and others. The followup (non)descriptive posting was however questionable, and the solicitation for information requests *by e-mail over the net* should definitely not have appeared. There are *competitors* of Intel on the net, why should they be bearing the cost of supplier-customer communications? I recently posted an article in net.news.group & net.micro.amiga on this subject, specifically being concerned that net.micro.amiga is turning into a dialogue between Commodore-Amiga and their software developers. Ray Dunn. ...philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray
sambo@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln) (11/02/85)
In article <533@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >I fail to see why anyone would 'sweat' over the 386 unless they knew they >HAD to use it on their next project. What can it do that the 68020 can't do >better? Run several MS-DOS programs simultaneously with full 8086 compatibility, with each program in its very own 1 MByte address space. Or how about running a program that requires 64 terabytes of memory? By the way, do I note a bit of unwillingness to listen to someone (or something) just be- cause he (it) is black? -- Samuel A. Figueroa, Dept. of CS, Univ. of KY, Lexington, KY 40506-0027 ARPA: ukma!sambo<@ANL-MCS>, or sambo%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa, or even anlams!ukma!sambo@ucbvax.arpa UUCP: {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!sambo, or cbosgd!ukma!sambo "Micro-ln is great, if only people would start using it."
guarna@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU (11/02/85)
/* Written 10:16 pm Oct 30, 1985 by dfh@scirtp.UUCP in uicsrd:net.arch */ > I fail to see why anyone would 'sweat' over the 386 unless they knew they > HAD to use it on their next project. What can it do that the 68020 can't do > better? ...Depends on the application. For example, the '386 is a much better choice for tacking things to cork bulletin boards (132 Pins versus the '020's 114 pins for PGA packaging). Vince
jqj@cornell.UUCP (J Q Johnson) (11/02/85)
> I object to this press release hype here in net.micro. ... > Please don't lower this newsgroup to this level!!!!!!! I disagree strongly. I think that, despite the tone of the original 386 posting it contained substantially more interesting information than do most of the postings on net.arch. Let's move on. Stop discussing the tone of the 386 posting and start discussing real comparison of the new generation of 32bit microprocessors. Let's see some real comparison of the 68020 with the 386, with the ATT chip, and with the various other chips we can expect to see hitting the market in the next year (Hitachi, etc.). other
pauls@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Sweazey) (11/04/85)
> --but I'd still be happy if we could pry some substantive > information from Intel instead of chasing them away completely. > -- > Dick Dunn They DID give me something substantive...an 800 number, and a few days later the spec sheet (spec book?). The 386 is a brilliant melding of marketing expedience and technical excellence. Perhaps, rather than griping, you should use the phone. Paul Sweazey {decvax,ucbvax,etc}!tektronix!tekecs!pauls
lmpopp@watdaisy.UUCP (Len Popp) (11/04/85)
In article <391@sesame.UUCP> slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) writes: ><> > >For those who haven't received their '386 info packets yet, a nice >feature that I wish all chips would include: > >4 hardware breakpoint registers!! The 32000 family MMU (32082, I think) has had this feature for a couple of years. There are two registers with breakpoint addresses and conditions. A breakpoint can be triggered on execution, read or write of the virtual or physical address. There is also a count register specifying the number of breakpoints to ignore before breaking. A nice feature, yes, but not a groundbreaking innovation. Len Popp lmpopp@watdaisy
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (11/04/85)
In article <532@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >Some marketing guy from Intel writes: >Hey dude, gimme a break. If I wanted marketing propaganda garbage, I'd call >my local Intel office. This crap doesn't belong here. Just because you don't >have your own newsgroup doesn't mean you can litter net.micro and net.arch >with marketing verbage. > >-- > David Hinnant Hey, Dude, give us a break! The Intel 386 is going to impact an awful lot of us on the net, and I think it is pretty nice to get a description here and be able to direct questions to the folks that know. If you don't like the hyperbole, consider that if you had worked on the project, you might be a bit proud of it also and consider it quite an accomplishment. Finally, I think that, from what I read, the 386 corrects many of the inexcusable architectural boo-boos Intel committed on the 8086/186/286 line. Since many of us are forced to use these products by market pressure, it is great to know that in the future things will be better. So... if you don't like the posting, I suggest that in the future you hit "n" and skip it. Don't censor it on my behalf! -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john (602) 952-8205 (day or evening) 5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/05/85)
> >... What can it [the 386] do that the 68020 can't do better? > > Run several MS-DOS programs simultaneously with full 8086 compatibility, > with each program in its very own 1 MByte address space. Running old software is best done by recompiling portable source. Or, in the case of much MSDOS software, throwing it out and reimplementing. The parts about "simultaneous" and "very own address space" are nothing special. If one really wants to make a decent machine [stipulating that the 386 is such, I haven't got full specs yet] act like a bunch of brain-damaged ones, consider the awesome inefficiency of emulating things like screen updates one instruction at a time. (Or does the 386 have some better hooks for emulating memory-mapped virtual i/o devices?) Yes, Virginia, there are MSDOS programs that do their own screen updates. Lots of them. > Or how about running a program that requires 64 terabytes of memory? Name one. Name one disk with enough space to serve as backing store, too. Note that you can't exploit that space without resorting to the disastrously inefficient "large model" code, either. Practically all real 386 programs are going to run "small model", which fortunately isn't much of a problem when that means 32-bit addresses. > By the way, do I note a bit of unwillingness to listen to someone (or > something) just because he (it) is black? No, you detect a strong note of skepticism about Intel processors, after four (five if you count the 432) botches in a row. Maybe the skepticism is unjustified in this case; I reserve judgement until I see spec sheets. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/05/85)
> For those who haven't received their '386 info packets yet, a nice > feature that I wish all chips would include: > > 4 hardware breakpoint registers!! These registers will break not only > on execution, but also on data access to any of the defined addresses. > Oh boy! Software only 'ICE' features. What will they think up next? You mean, what will they borrow from National next? The 32000 family MMU has had this sort of thing all along. Does the 386 have branch- history registers? (The 32000 MMU does.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
sambo@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln) (11/06/85)
In article <6112@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >consider the awesome inefficiency of emulating things like screen updates >one instruction at a time. (Or does the 386 have some better hooks for >emulating memory-mapped virtual i/o devices?) Yes, Virginia, there are >MSDOS programs that do their own screen updates. I am talking about something outside my expertise (all areas are outside my expertise), but if I understand the Intel literature correctly, you can do paging on top of emulating the 8086 in "virtual 86 mode." Then you can set the page(s) where the screen is to "not present," and then do a trap every time it is accessed. Alternatively, you could set that page as "read-only," so that you would do a trap only on writes. According to Intel, this is not as fast as one might like, but when running both 8086 code and 80386 code, the 80386 is quite fast. -- Samuel A. Figueroa, Dept. of CS, Univ. of KY, Lexington, KY 40506-0027 ARPA: ukma!sambo<@ANL-MCS>, or sambo%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa, or even anlams!ukma!sambo@ucbvax.arpa UUCP: {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!sambo, or cbosgd!ukma!sambo "Micro-ln is great, if only people would start using it."
asgard@well.UUCP (J. R. Stoner) (11/07/85)
In article <7475@watdaisy.UUCP> lmpopp@watdaisy.UUCP (Len Popp) writes: >> >>For those who haven't received their '386 info packets yet, a nice >>feature that I wish all chips would include: >> >>4 hardware breakpoint registers!! > >The 32000 family MMU (32082, I think) has had this feature for a couple of >years. There are two registers with breakpoint addresses and conditions. >A breakpoint can be triggered on execution, read or write of the virtual or >physical address. There is also a count register specifying the number of >breakpoints to ignore before breaking. In actual fact National Semiconductor has removed the breakpointing registers from the 32082 after CPU step K was released. -- From the mania of: J. R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner, Esq.
crs@lanl.ARPA (11/07/85)
> > (800) 538-1876, ask for operator 386 and receive a packet of information > > about the 80386 (data sheet, product announcements etc). > > > > Clif Purkiser > > 386 Product Marketing > > {amd hplaps pur-ee}!intelca > > > > Unix is a trademark of AT&T > > ICE-386, PSCOPE-386, MULTIBUS, RMX are all trademarks of Intel > > Hey dude, gimme a break. If I wanted marketing propaganda garbage, I'd call > my local Intel office. This crap doesn't belong here. Just because you don't > have your own newsgroup doesn't mean you can litter net.micro and net.arch > with marketing verbage. > > -- > David Hinnant Some of us find new product announcements as useful here as we do in other technical publications. Exercise your 'n' key. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (11/08/85)
J. R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner, Esq. writes > In actual fact National Semiconductor has removed the breakpointing registers > from the 32082 after CPU step K was released. Wrong. The latest 32032 CPU rev is H. The latest 32082 MMU rev is M. The errata (excuuse me, "User Information") sheet for the Rev M 32082, dated 8th August 1985, says that "physical breakpoints cannot be used reliably". However the part definitely still contains two breakpoint registers. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.UUCP, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{decwrl,ucbvax}!sun!saber!msc, ...{amdcad,ihnp4}!saber!msc
jack@boring.UUCP (11/08/85)
In article <259@well.UUCP> asgard@well.UUCP (J. R. Stoner) writes: > >In actual fact National Semiconductor has removed the breakpointing registers >from the 32082 after CPU step K was released. > >-- >From the mania of: >J. R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner, Esq. I surely hope this is mania! Can anyone deny or confirm this? And, if it is true, does this mean that they've replaced it with something else? -- Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP The shell is my oyster.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/09/85)
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow: >J. R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner, Esq. writes >> In actual fact National Semiconductor has removed the breakpointing registers >> from the 32082 after CPU step K was released. > >Wrong. > >The latest 32032 CPU rev is H. True, but the 320*16* CPU rev K was released some time ago. I suspect that is what J. R. was referring to. They made it to rev N on that part before it more-or-less stabilized. > The latest 32082 MMU rev is M. >The errata (excuuse me, "User Information") sheet for the Rev M >32082, dated 8th August 1985, says that "physical breakpoints >cannot be used reliably". > >However the part definitely still contains two breakpoint registers. Much as the human body still contains a vermiform appendix. Baba
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/10/85)
> ... if I understand the Intel literature correctly, you > can do paging on top of emulating the 8086 in "virtual 86 mode." Then > you can set the page(s) where the screen is to "not present," and then do > a trap every time it is accessed. Alternatively, you could set that page > as "read-only," so that you would do a trap only on writes. According to > Intel, this is not as fast as one might like... "not as fast as one might like" is the understatement of the century, actually. This is a serious performance problem in virtual-machine work when the machine has memory-mapped i/o devices. For the screen, you might be able to live with a scheme in which the system scanned the page table every 60th of a second to identify "screen" pages which had been modified, and then did something appropriate with them. Trapping every screen-update write is a performance disaster. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/10/85)
My suggestion is that "new product" postings to normal newsgroups should
follow the rule Usenix suggested for submitted papers some years ago: if
a substantial fraction of the paper is things your competitors would love
to know, then it is adequately technical.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrymdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) (11/10/85)
In article <6112@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> By the way, do I note a bit of unwillingness to listen to someone (or >> something) just because he (it) is black? >No, you detect a strong note of skepticism about Intel processors, after >four (five if you count the 432) botches in a row. Maybe the skepticism >is unjustified in this case; I reserve judgement until I see spec sheets. AW, COME ON HENRY! Although the the 8080/8088/8086/80186/80286 doesn't have a sensuous organization like the 68000/68020, only a twit would say INTEL botched it considering the 10 to 1 ratio between Intel and Motorola shipped units. (and I know your not a twit) Having designed with both companies products and SUPPORT services, I must admit that INTEL does do a few things right.... Even MOTOROLA would admit that. Now Henry, be nice to those poor INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... Big Mac
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (11/11/85)
> From the TARDIS of Mark Callow: > >J. R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner, Esq. writes > >> In actual fact National Semiconductor has removed the breakpointing registers > >> from the 32082 after CPU step K was released. > > > >Wrong. > > > >The latest 32032 CPU rev is H. > > True, but the 320*16* CPU rev K was released some time ago. I suspect that > is what J. R. was referring to. They made it to rev N on that part before > it more-or-less stabilized. He may have had the 32016 in mind. However, the breakpoint registers are in the 32082 MMU (as he said) and they haven't been removed from the current rev M part. The only support required of the CPU is the NMI trap which is unlikely to go away. Therefore the CPU rev is irrelevant to this discussion. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.UUCP, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{decwrl,ucbvax}!sun!saber!msc, ...{amdcad,ihnp4}!saber!msc
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/14/85)
> ... only a twit would say INTEL botched it considering the 10 to 1 ratio > between Intel and Motorola shipped units. Which would you say is better musically: Beethoven or the Rolling Stones? Now, which sells better? Have you looked at sales figures for the RK07 or the RL01? Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense: they have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years. I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't. Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve. > ... Now Henry, be nice to those poor > INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... Sounds like a hanging offence to me! -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/14/85)
> AW, COME ON HENRY! Although the the 8080/8088/8086/80186/80286 doesn't have a > sensuous organization like the 68000/68020, only a twit would say INTEL > botched it considering the 10 to 1 ratio between Intel and Motorola shipped I must be a twit. The success of Intel can be spelled in 3 letters: I, B, and M. Any processor IBM chose would end up outselling the others 10:1 or more simply because IBM has the premier marketing department. > right.... Even MOTOROLA would admit that. Now Henry, be nice to those poor > INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... Oh, you noticed. There is no way that I'm going to be nice to people responsible, even indirectly, for making the IBM-PC the de-facto standard microcomputer in the US. That's damning by faint praise if ever I heard it. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) (11/15/85)
In article <6139@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense: they >have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years. Let's see, 10 years ago.... Ah yes, the 8080 was just introduced... I believe a company called MITS introduced the Altair 8800.... The machine which really started the PC revolution.... Seems to me, this may qualify INTEL as the company that set the industry ahead 10 years. Last I checked Henry, the free world revolved around one person making money at anothers expense.... If you are arguing against capitalism, I think you are on the wrong net. Going back further, if I remember correctly, INTEL introduced the first "general purpose" micro, the 4004. They are not just one of the large chip companies, they had alot to do with the industry starting in the first place. >I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't. >Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve. > >> Now Henry, be nice to those poor >> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... > >Sounds like a hanging offence to me! In the free market system, those who prduce trashy processors that are a waste of good sand do one thing.... lose the stockholders a great deal of money and upset a few fools that design the product in anyway.. The only product that INTEL produced that fulfilled this was the 432. That's one of the best track records around in this industry. I'm not in love with their chip architecture myself, but one should give the devil his due. INTEL has succeded in producing more successful micro products than anyone else and has provided the customers with the tools to get the product to market as well as an upgrade path from their earlier devices (8080-8086) to the next generation technology. This is fact... This is also what keeps them a broad base of loyal customers.... They must have one hell of alot of stupid customers...... Who have alot of stupid customers ..... that buy alot of products with ..... trashy processors in them.... That work..... Big Mac 317-497-0509
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/16/85)
In article <435@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >I must be a twit. The success of Intel can be spelled in 3 letters: I, B, >and M. Any processor IBM chose would end up outselling the others 10:1 or >more simply because IBM has the premier marketing department. Now Peter, this is begging the question. Remember, IBM is out to make money. When they choose a device, they try to make the best choice they can. So you have to say that either IBM is a twit, which I won't accept for a company as successful as they are, or that the 8086 was the best choice AT THE TIME. Sure we have better choices now, but that's irrelevant. So how come no one complains about the wimpy 6502 in Apple IIs? What is this selective myopia? I think you're all just a bunch of IBM-phobes. -- Raise snails for fun and profit! Race them for amusement! Then eat the losers! Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
e-smith@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric L. Smith) (11/17/85)
In article <6386@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >So how come no one complains about the wimpy 6502 in Apple IIs? What is >this selective myopia? I think you're all just a bunch of IBM-phobes. Maybe because even though the 6502 is brain-damaged by today's standards, even Apple is not trying to pass it off as state-of-the-art, vs. IBM's PC-AT (80286, only 6MHz!). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric L. Smith (801) 581-8100 e-smith@utah-cs.arpa ...decvax!utah-cs!e-smith 3118 Merrill Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the University of Utah, my friends, enemies, computer, or even me. :-) Is this the most magnificant fire you have seen or am I crazy?
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (11/17/85)
In article <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) writes: >In article <6139@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense: they >>have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years. > >Let's see, 10 years ago.... Ah yes, the 8080 was just introduced... >I believe a company called MITS introduced the Altair 8800.... The machine >which really started the PC revolution.... Ok, Intel did make one good (for the time) processor, the 8080. But that was more than ten years ago. They really haven't changed their architecture since then. While the rest of the micro world was learning the joys of modern architecture, Intel was busily trying to figure out how to stuff 8-bit performance into a 16-bit micro. > >Last I checked Henry, the free world revolved around one >person making money at anothers expense.... If you are arguing against >capitalism, I think you are on the wrong net. This is a very interesting definition of capitalism, but I especially like how you come up with a lousy definition of capitalism and then use it to bash Henry. > >>I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't. >>Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve. >> >>> Now Henry, be nice to those poor >>> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... >> >>Sounds like a hanging offence to me! Think what the world would be like now if IBM had decided to go with the Motorola family of chips for the PC series. WOW!! We would really have some systems out there. IBM chose Intel for business, not technical, reasons. I don't think Motorola would have sold IBM twelve percent of their stock. Besides, IBM and Motorola compete (or will be shortly) in a number of areas. > >In the free market system, those who prduce trashy processors that are a >waste of good sand do one thing.... lose the stockholders a great deal of >money and upset a few fools that design the product in anyway.. > >I'm not in love with their chip architecture myself, but one should give >the devil his due. INTEL has succeded in producing more successful micro >products than anyone else and has provided the customers with the tools >to get the product to market as well as an upgrade path from their earlier >devices (8080-8086) to the next generation technology. Of course, from a computer architecture point of view the 8080 and the 8086 are the SAME generattion of technology. I would also be interested in how you define successful. Is it just the one that makes alot of money? If you want to say that the 808X family is the most successful, the credit has to go to IBM, not Intel. >This is fact... >This is also what keeps them a broad base of loyal customers.... >They must have one hell of alot of stupid customers...... >Who have alot of stupid customers ..... >that buy alot of products with ..... >trashy processors in them.... >That work..... Nobody said they didn't work. They're just clumsy and make life difficult for the people that must use them. If you want upward compatiblity, write everything in a portable language, and recompile (I know it is not so simple, but porting properly written code is not that tough). I for one am glad that DEC didn't decide to build PDP-8 compatibility in to the VAX, but I guess if they did they would have set the industry ahead ten years. Or something like that. > >Big Mac > >317-497-0509 > >
cdshaw@watrose.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (11/19/85)
I have two points to make: 1) Shut up about capitalism/whatever of Intel. A debate on this level is counter-productive, doesn't belong in this group, and cannot be effectively conducted in screen-size chunks. 2) The whole thing about the 8086 is that it is, to some degree, upward compatible from 8080. So you get 8080 -> 8086 -> 186 -> 286 -> 386, each better than the last in some way or another. Why? Market share. A fundamental lesson learned very early on (50's) by computer makers is that if you introduce a new & different cpu, you have to re-code all those dusty decks of payroll, acct receivable, etc, thus wasting valuable time to actually use your shiny new machine. If you keep the instruction set (and so on) the same, only faster, you get your performance instantly. Your competitor doesn't beat you to market in the time it takes to re-code all the old software. Your customers are also familiar with your machines, because in a sense they are all the same. The classic, ultimate example of this is the 370 series. The 3090 can run essentially the same software as the 370/158. The time difference for these machines is probably 15 years (don't know for sure). Thus, Joe Insurance Co. hasn't had to change its software because of software for the last 15 years. CPU upgrades are a joke. At Waterloo recently, 2 4341's were swapped for 2 4381's in the space of about 5-10 hours. Nobody noticed, except for speed. Chris Shaw watmath!watrose!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (11/19/85)
. . > The classic, ultimate example of this is the 370 series. The 3090 can run > essentially the same software as the 370/158. The time difference for these > machines is probably 15 years (don't know for sure). > . . > Chris Shaw watmath!watrose!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath > University of Waterloo > In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness It goes further than that (even! :-) ) it would probably run 360 software too (since the 370 ran 360 stuff) -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
kbb@faron.UUCP (Kenneth B. Bass) (11/19/85)
In article <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) writes: >In article <6139@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>Intel has made a lot of money, at everyone else's expense: they >>have probably succeeded in setting the industry back ten years. > >Let's see, 10 years ago.... Ah yes, the 8080 was just introduced... >I believe a company called MITS introduced the Altair 8800.... The machine >which really started the PC revolution.... > >Seems to me, this may qualify INTEL as the company that set the industry >ahead 10 years. Last I checked Henry, the free world revolved around one >person making money at anothers expense.... If you are arguing against >capitalism, I think you are on the wrong net. > >Going back further, if I remember correctly, INTEL introduced the first >"general purpose" micro, the 4004. They are not just one of the large chip >companies, they had alot to do with the industry starting in the first place. > >>I agree that Intel does some things right, but I almost wish they didn't. >>Their support gets them customers their trashy processors don't deserve. >> >>> Now Henry, be nice to those poor >>> INTEL people who indirectly brought us the PC, PC-AT,......... >> >>Sounds like a hanging offence to me! > >In the free market system, those who prduce trashy processors that are a >waste of good sand do one thing.... lose the stockholders a great deal of >money and upset a few fools that design the product in anyway.. The only >product that INTEL produced that fulfilled this was the 432. That's one of >the best track records around in this industry. > >I'm not in love with their chip architecture myself, but one should give >the devil his due. INTEL has succeded in producing more successful micro >products than anyone else and has provided the customers with the tools >to get the product to market as well as an upgrade path from their earlier >devices (8080-8086) to the next generation technology. This is fact... >This is also what keeps them a broad base of loyal customers.... >They must have one hell of alot of stupid customers...... >Who have alot of stupid customers ..... >that buy alot of products with ..... >trashy processors in them.... >That work..... > >Big Mac > >317-497-0509 Don't forget about CP/M. INTEL's original development system ISIS was the precursor of CP/M. Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth... "It ain't necessarily so" ken bass linus!faron!kbb
dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis Griesser) (11/21/85)
In article <6386@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >Now Peter, this is begging the question. Remember, IBM is out to make money. >When they choose a device, they try to make the best choice they can. >So you have to say that either IBM is a twit, which I won't accept for >a company as successful as they are, or that the 8086 was the best >choice AT THE TIME. Sure we have better choices now, but that's irrelevant. A lousy argument. In logic class, they called this the fallacy of "appeal to authority". It can be summarized "X said this, and X is always right, so this must be true." What I do not doubt is that IBM did indeed make the best choice. However my definition of "best" may not match yours or IBM's. The fact is that IBM is out to make a lot of money. In this case, the best choice of a CPU is one that makes them the most money. There are quite a few trade-offs to be considered, including: actual performance, customer perception of the product, and manufacturing price. I have no idea what factors were included in this decision or how they were weighted. But what would have happened if IBM had been offered a somewhat less than state-of-the-art CPU, in quantity, for an absurdly low price? Most of the personal computers in the world might be running CP/M-80! -- [Standard disclaimers apply.]
meissner@rtp47.UUCP (Michael Meissner) (11/23/85)
In article <2796@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >. >> Chris Shaw writes >> The classic, ultimate example of this is the 370 series. The 3090 can run >> essentially the same software as the 370/158. The time difference for these >> machines is probably 15 years (don't know for sure). > > It goes further than that (even! :-) ) it would probably run 360 software too > (since the 370 ran 360 stuff) > It goes even further, since all of IBM's mainframes also include emulators for their previous machines (which I believe are the 704 and 1600). Now adays, the IBM 3084 emulating an IBM 704, runs faster than the original machine. Some of IBM's biggest customers run accounting programs written in the early 70's, for which there is no source available (or the source is all assembler).
dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) (11/24/85)
> I have two points to make: > > 2) The whole thing about the 8086 is that it is, to some degree, upward > compatible from 8080. So you get 8080 -> 8086 -> 186 -> 286 -> 386, > each better than the last in some way or another. > This is true up to a point. (See below). > Why? Market share. A fundamental lesson learned very early on (50's) by > etc..... > essentially the same software as the 370/158. The time difference for these > machines is probably 15 years (don't know for sure). > > Thus, Joe Insurance Co. hasn't had to change its software because of software > for the last 15 years. CPU upgrades are a joke. At Waterloo recently, > 2 4341's were swapped for 2 4381's in the space of about 5-10 hours. > Nobody noticed, except for speed. > > Chris Shaw watmath!watrose!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath The point about Joe Insurance Co. is not a particularly valid one. I suspect that most software written 8, 10 or 15 years has long since outlived its usefulness. Example: At (an unnamed division of) ITT, I ran into a receiving system that constantly crashed, and when up was very, very slow. Often I would go down to receiving, checking on what was growing roots there and hadn't been shipped up to us (everything from disks to disk drives. What bozos!) On several occasions I was told the that "the terminal was full". It seems the DBMS could only hold a finite number of entries that was obviously to low. The DBMS? It was written 10 years ago and when contacted, the vendor was amazed to find anyone still using it. The source code? Not even the vendor had it around anymore. In this 'age' of new! and improved! software (SuperCalc --> Lotus 1-2-3 --> ??) I don't think maintaining the bridge between applications on microprocessor driven systems is as important as it once was (any may still be) with mainframes. Applications software simply changes too fast. -- David Hinnant SCI Systems, Inc. ...{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh
josh@polaris.UUCP (Josh Knight) (11/27/85)
In article <261@rtp47.UUCP> meissner@rtp47.UUCP (Michael Meissner) writes: >It goes even further, since all of IBM's mainframes also include emulators for >their previous machines (which I believe are the 704 and 1600). Now adays, >the IBM 3084 emulating an IBM 704, runs faster than the original machine. Some >of IBM's biggest customers run accounting programs written in the early 70's, >for which there is no source available (or the source is all assembler). Well...almost... The last model for which 1401/1440/1460 and 1410/7010 compatibility was available was the 370/158. The last model for which 7070/7074, 7080 and 709/7090/7094 II compatibility was available was the 370/168. Quite a while ago, actually (mid 70's). These features are not available on any of the 303x, 308x or 3090 processors (reference "IBM System/370 Processor Summary: Processors", publication number GA22-7001). I do keep seeing adds for a product (can't remember the vendor, sorry :-) which purports to convert 1401 autocoder (essentially 1401 assembly language) into COBOL. Also, there may be software emulators (simulators?), but I don't know of them. I'm not very knowledgeable about this, but I think one might be able to micro-code the 308x series processors for your critical 1401 applications, call your IBM sales representative for a quote (-: (-: :-) :-). Any opinions (expressed or implied) or errors are mine and not my employer's. -- Josh Knight, IBM T.J. Watson Research josh at YKTVMH on BITNET, josh.yktvmh@ibm-sj on CSnet, ...!philabs!polaris!josh
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (11/27/85)
In article <552@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >In this 'age' of new! and improved! software (SuperCalc --> Lotus 1-2-3 >--> ??) I don't think maintaining the bridge between applications on >microprocessor driven systems is as important as it once was (any may >still be) with mainframes. Applications software simply changes too fast. > >-- > David Hinnant > SCI Systems, Inc. > ...{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh Daisy Systems has invested a few hundred person-years in writing and debugging software for CAE applications. Portability to us is very, very important. Our software ran adequately on 8086s and quite nicely on 80286s. The ability to run '286 software on the '386 without change but at twice the clock rate, is a big win for us and for our customers. It is easier to port code to different processors in the same family than between families. At least, judging by experience porting code between members of the '86 family and porting the same code to other processors. By preserving backward compatibility, Intel allows old software to run while new software is written. For Daisy's customers, this means they can preserve their old knowledge (how to use old programs) and learn how to use new '386-only programs at whatever speed they want to learn. Backwards compatibility means not forcing your customers to convert. That's worth a lot. [I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY WRITING ABOVE. NO ONE ELSE IS. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL DAISY OPINION.]
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (12/10/85)
In article <> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes: >By preserving backward compatibility, Intel allows old software to run >while new software is written. For Daisy's customers, this means they But why write new software when the old works so well? By this reason we should just port everything to CP/M and work on designing *FAST* Z80s. There have been some rumors about a 75 Meg version of the 8080 coming out. If this is true, we won't have to worry about backward compatibility. And an address will be an address like God intended... :-) Why should I disclaim this? I didn't write it. -- Robert Kenyon p / ...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon / kenyon@nmt / g Your father was a mother and your hamster smells of elderberries!
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (12/14/85)
In article <466@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >But all this aside, is the 8086 the processor to run these heavy floating >point applications? Certainly not without the 8087, and if you're that >keen on speed but insist on 8086 you should have gone to 286, where it is >actually possible to have segment 2 64K beyond segment 1, allowing full >sized objects with little work by the compiler. I don't know if anybody >has done this, though. > It could have been done with no work from the compiler if Intel had put the bits in a reasonable place. A full pointer has a selector and an offset. Here is what they look like: Selector: -------------------------------------------------------- | Segment Number ( 13 bits ) | Other Stuff ( 3 bits ) | -------------------------------------------------------- Offset: -------------------------------------------------------- | Offset in Segment ( 16 bits ) | -------------------------------------------------------- If they had swapped the Segment number and the Other Stuff, then one could stick 64k segments one after the other, and do reasonable stuff with pointers, and everyone would live happily ever after. Could someone from Intel please explain why it was done this way instead? The only guess I have heard is that since the Segment Number is an index into a table of eight byte things, they saved having to do a shift by three. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (12/17/85)
In article <154@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > It could have been done with no work from the compiler if Intel had > put the bits in a reasonable place. A full pointer has a selector and > an offset. Here is what they look like: > > Selector: > -------------------------------------------------------- > | Segment Number ( 13 bits ) | Other Stuff ( 3 bits ) | > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Offset: > -------------------------------------------------------- > | Offset in Segment ( 16 bits ) | > -------------------------------------------------------- > Huh? Wha? Am I awake yet? That is NOT the way the segments work; the "Other Stuff" is not a pointer into any kind of table, in fact, it doesn't exist at all. A full pointer on the 8086 is two words. The first word is nothing more than a pointer to a 16-byte boundary which is the beginning of the 64K segment. The second word is the offset within the segment, and is simply added to the (left-shifted 4 bits) first word to obtain a 20-bit real address. -- Mike Farren uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667 USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618
asgard@well.UUCP (J. R. Stoner) (12/18/85)
In article <351@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >In article <154@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >> It could have been done with no work from the compiler if Intel had >> put the bits in a reasonable place. A full pointer has a selector and >> an offset. Here is what they look like: >> >> ( BONK BONK! :-) >> >> > > Huh? Wha? Am I awake yet? That is NOT the way the segments work; >the "Other Stuff" is not a pointer into any kind of table, in fact, it doesn't >exist at all. A full pointer on the 8086 is two words. The first word is >nothing more than a pointer to a 16-byte boundary which is the beginning of >the 64K segment. The second word is the offset within the segment, and is >simply added to the (left-shifted 4 bits) first word to obtain a 20-bit real >address. > >-- > Mike Farren > uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren > Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667 > USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618 > Not at all. The information previously posted was in reference to the user documentation for the iAPX 286 and not the brain damaged 808x (the black book). -- From the mania of: J. R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner, Esq.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (12/18/85)
In article <351@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: > Huh? Wha? Am I awake yet? That is NOT the way the segments work; > I was talking about the 80286 in protected mode. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (12/19/85)
In article <351@well.UUCP> I wrote: >In article <154@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >> It could have been done with no work from the compiler if Intel had >> put the bits in a reasonable place. A full pointer has a selector and >> an offset. Here is what they look like: >> > > Huh? Wha? Am I awake yet? Well, the answer is, of course, no. If I had been paying more attention (or had bothered to look at the previous articles), I would have realized that the subject wasn't 8086 segments, but 80286 protected mode, as many have been kind enough to point out. My apologies to all - I'll try and see that it doesn't happen again. -- Mike Farren uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667 USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618