From: "John M. Aldrich" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DPMI incorporation... Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 18:24:52 -0800 Organization: Two pounds of chaos and a pinch of salt Lines: 31 Message-ID: <32C484F4.29A2@cs.com> References: <199612272249 DOT XAA13864 AT math DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl> Reply-To: fighteer AT cs DOT com NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp110.cs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Mark Habersack wrote: > > DPMI was designed for i386+ only and it would never run on iAPX286- > machines. DPMI heavily relies on features found only in i386+ > machines (like paged memory). Well, of course. This is what I was referring to. ;) > I don't think it'd make sense, anyway. The best use for 286 CPUs > today is in Tekram (or similar) cacheing controllers or in advanced > monitors. Thus 286 has virtually been 'reduced' to a level of a > processor in embedded systems (although i386EX is taking over the > area). Actually, 286's and lesser computers are still widely in use in less-developed areas of the world. For example, I believe that there are still restrictions on export of computer technology to the former Soviet Union. I had the opportunity not long ago to converse with a representative of a company planning to design a new DOS-based OS geared towards such customers. Unfortunately, DJGPP was not suitable for inclusion in this project because of the 386 restriction. C'est la vie; progress marches on... -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I | fighteer AT cs DOT com | | "Starting flamewars since 1993" | http://www.cs.com/fighteer | | *** NOTICE *** This .signature is generated randomly. | | If you don't like it, sue my computer. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------