[rescue] A bit of Fun
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
gsm at mendelson.com
Tue Jun 17 14:58:03 CDT 2003
Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> The 80268 and 80386 both peeved me. Both were good chances to fix
> things, but they didn't. But the 80286 was worse because you could
> enter protected mode, but you couldn't leave it. Thus, I never heard of
> a single program that used 80286 protected mode, except OS2.
Windows/286, Coherent, Xenix. Whatever the 286 version of EMM386 was called.
A smart programer got around the problem. They set a bit to zero in memory
and did a cpu reset. A real cpu reset would have left the bit unitialized,
i.e. a one.
Real UNIX was not ported to Intel until the 386. The 386 had 2 features
that were missing in the older processors, a flat address space
(segment addressing was no longer required) and virtual memeory,
it also was able to gracefuly leave protected mode,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm at mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?
More information about the rescue