Subject:
|
Re: Perl rules!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:35:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1189 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:33:17 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve
Bliss) wrote:
> And why did IBM stick all the ROM and system stuff in high memory (>640K),
> rather than low memory? If they had done that, it would have been (more)
> possible to extend the address space without totally losing backwards
> compatibility.
Actually, it would have been a hell of a lot easier, given that you at
elast have homogeneous address space. But you do need to rewrite the
kernel to be able to access it at all, and we all know how fast MS is
at that sorta thing..
>
> Or if Intel had made a processor which would do "old mode" as a secondary
> option, rather than the bootup default. Then old programs could be run by
> dropping into stupid mode, rather than the system having to drag itself up
> out of stupid mode every time it wanted to do 32-bit.
And have a processor that, in order to function in a PC, needs to have
BIOS code to turn it into dumb mode.
End result is _exactly_ the same, but Intel puts BIOS manufacturers
through a lot of trouble for no good reason and loses marketshare
(after all, this was back when they still could lose markertshare if
they did something stupid..)
> I'm still waiting for the *real* OS to come along. *nix will never appeal
> to the masses--the knowledge requirement is too high. WebTV (and similar
> things) won't cut it as a real computer. Windows is too bloated and
> legacy.
>
> So what will it be?
QNX looks nice. BeOS is dead, I'm afraid.
My bets would be on a linux kernel with a custom GUI. Knowledge
requirement is too high _now_, but that won't be that way forever.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) And why did IBM stick all the ROM and system stuff in high memory (>640K), rather than low memory? If they had done that, it would have been (more) possible to extend the address space without totally losing backwards compatibility. Or if (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
