rokicki@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) (01/13/90)
>Wow, I must be really (in)famous to occupy a whole Subject :-) You're certainly getting there! >Tom, I really like some of the stuff you have writen for the Amiga >but you seem to be disagreeing with Motorola: <Blush> yes, of course, as Motorola admits, Move from SR is indeed a hole in the 68000 virtual machine. But it is a hole that affects a vanishingly small percentage of programs. >>True, except that 99% of the software (and certainly all productivity >>software) does not use MOVE from SR, so there is no problem. >At least 99% of time (and certinaly all working hours), I am not having >sex, so I am still a virgin. Bad analogy. Sorry to hear about your sex life. >You mean I can drop a '010 into my Amiga (or have my dealer do it) and >when I have a problem, I can call Commodore-Amiga for support? This is >extremely good news. Can someone at Commodore confirm this please? This is exactly what I mean, except that your dealer is the front-line for support; that's what dealers are for. >There you go again, comparing software systems. I was talking about bugs >in processors. I believe you were talking about object code compatibility. This is a measureable statistic; your claim was that Intel does better in this regard. >You are right, I was "winding people up" (an English expression that I just >picked up recently). Watching people come up with incoherant flames to >technically correct arguments is one way to spend the winter hours :-) But doesn't this just generate ceaseless flame wars? It's sort of like yelling `FIRE' in a crowded theater, or yelling a racial epithet at a minority. Then again, the S/N ratio here is so low anyway; how far can it sink? >I assure you that I understand the technical points. What is more, I seem >to understand the *subtle* implications of the questions a whole lot more >than many of the people on the net. [See, I just snuck in yet another >atomic-powered flame generator. Gotta keep comp.sys.amiga usage up.] That's even worse. If you're smart enough to argue from a position of strength, you should have better things to do with your time and more constructive things to say on the net. Local bboards are for taunting and teasing. -tom
rich@inmet.inmet.com (01/14/90)
Stan, why don't you losen up? 80X86 family has user mode incompatble instructions too. Go look up the behavior for "PUSH SP" in the 286 manual. The 386 protected mode (the "native" 32 bits mode) is definitely not compatible with the 286 protected mode. Check your facts, will you. Get a life. More programs break when you switch to a FASTER processor than a new processor. Does that mean we should only use the slower mode? Who should we blame then? Perhaps you would be happy if the PC world still uses a 4.77 MHz 8088. Get the facts straight. Look at the REAL world. You probably hang around your work place too much. Don't be so stuffy eh? Richard "I hate Confusicus lies" Man
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (01/14/90)
Please, let's let this thread die. And let's ignore this guy in the future. It's reached the 'who cares' stage. Save the bandwidth for important stuff. Dana @ cup.portal.com
schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) (01/16/90)
In article <29700001@inmet> rich@inmet.inmet.com writes: > >Stan, why don't you losen up? 80X86 family has user mode incompatble >instructions too. Go look up the behavior for "PUSH SP" in the 286 >manual. I am loose. I am loose. It's my terminal that makes me sound up-tight :-) Really, it is just my writing style. I get everything precise, but it sounds up-tight. Just a habit. Bingo! "PUSH SP" is number 4 in the list of 16 differences (in the 386 book). It is also the only user level one that is not pathological. On the other hand, I would rate it as an even smaller problem than MOVE SR. My respect for the net is up! There are actually several people who argues the facts of a case. Before you accuse me of inconsistancy, recall that I was talking about the approaches to handling bugs and some people denied *existence* of the MOVE SR bug. > >The 386 protected mode (the "native" 32 bits mode) is definitely not >compatible with the 286 protected mode. Check your facts, will you. On this one, you may be misinformed: "In general, programs designed for execution in protected mode on an 80286 executes without modificationon the 80386, because the features of the 80286 are a subset of those of the 80386. "All the descriptors used by the 80286 are supported by the 80386 as long as the Intel-reserved word (last word) of the 80286 descriptor is zero." Page 13-1 in "80386 Programmer's Reference Manual". The only other differences described are pathological cases. > >Get a life. More programs break when you switch to a FASTER processor >than a new processor. Does that mean we should only use the slower mode? >Who should we blame then? Perhaps you would be happy if the PC world still >uses a 4.77 MHz 8088. Me? Not a chance, I already have my 24 MHz /386 and I am building the Lucas/Frances boards. :-) This is in addition to the unique custom made expansion chasis with DMA harddisk and memory cards for my Amiga 1000. (Okay, I exaggerate, there are a total of *six* ever made but I do have the only nice platic front cover). >Get the facts straight. Look at the REAL world. You probably hang around >your work place too much. Don't be so stuffy eh? I do have the facts straight. But you (and Tom) are right, I should stop taunting and teasing. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185 Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.