Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26177

[OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++)

From	Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	[OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++)
Date	2011-02-07 23:19 -0500
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<iiqg8a$b4$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <4d4e7634$0$81475$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iinje0$7j3$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f55ba$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iiqbe9$q89$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d50b4dc$0$32795$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>

Show all headers | View raw

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote:
>> DOS/Windows is the only reason 8086/80286 segmented architectures became
>> popular.

Esmond Pitt wrote:
> Another blanket statement ex cathedra.
>
> That's not what the guys at Intel think, or the guys at Motorola either. They
> will tell you that despite its ugliness at the point of code generation the
> Intel segmented architecture yielded very significant cost and performance
> benefits that basically drove Motorola out of the market.

Intel brought quite a few innovations in quite early, many of which went 
nearly unnoticed for a while.  The '286 and up have privilege rings and 
support for multitasking in the hardware, for example.  Only a couple of OSes 
really used that stuff back then.

-- 
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
.___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/  | *\##|
|#/ * |   \#|
|#----|----#|
||    |  * ||
|o *  |    o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 14:13 +1100
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 20:31 +1300
  Re: [OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 16:53 +1100
    Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 20:32 +1300
  [OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 23:19 -0500

csiph-web