Posted-Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:20:46 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199701041620.KAA11019@mail.texoma.net> From: "Mark S. Teel" To: "DJGPP" Subject: Fw: 32-bit filenames Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:25:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- From: Mark S. Teel To: Benjamin D Chambers Subject: Re: 32-bit filenames Date: Saturday, January 04, 1997 9:52 AM ---------- From: Benjamin D Chambers To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: 32-bit filenames Date: Friday, January 03, 1997 8:22 PM On Fri, 03 Jan 97 01:52:01 GMT tomw AT tsys DOT demon DOT co DOT uk (Tom Wheeley) writes: >Doh! All of you forget that: > 16 bit == bad old style of doing things, whatever they > were 32 bit == incredible new invented by Microsoft way >of doing the same old things using more memory and disk >space and run a lot faster (but only when you upgrade >your CPU and memory). > >It's nothing at all to do with integer size or range of >addressable memory or register size or anything like that >:-p I *BEG* to differ on this point... 16-bit=good old way to do things, great system. 32-bit=incredible old way to do things, M$ had nothing to do with it, just as small, same disk space, don't need to upgrade memory. I admit, you do have to upgrade your CPU, unless people program wisely - which most usually don't. What people refer to as 16-bit or 32-bit is _THE SIZE OF THE REGISTERS_, so I do not see how you think it does not refer to integer size or register size. When Intel (again, NOT M$) introduced a 32-bit chip they offered more memory models than were previously available - so, really, the memory addressing _IS_ a result of the 32bit processor. Also, with a 32bit offset, it's possible to access 65536 times as much memory as a 16bit processor. Using more memory and disk space is not a result of the 32bit chip - if Intel had only made 16bit processors, programs would be just as large as they are now, just performing tasks differently. What usually eats up disk space is the code needed to switch the processor into protected mode (now _THAT'S_ M$'s fault - when the 386 came out, they should have made DOS PM by default, and use virtual 86 consoles for real-mode app's.) But the big point is, 16-bit and 32-bit are refering EXPLICITLY to the register size, and the rest just follows that. ....Chambers I'm not sure what we are debating here now, but, it is more than register size. It also involves CPU bus width (16 vs. 32 bit) and the fact that the "old" 16 bit intel cpus required the segment-offset approach to address memory outside of 1 meg. This approach (and IBM's initial choice of Intel vs. Motorola 68000 for thier first PCs) has confused/restricted/led to our ridiculous dependance on Microsoft for sub-par software for the last 17 years or so... Those of us who have programmed 68000s and flat memory model cpus in general have disliked Intel/segment-offset/Microsoft/PC programming for years! Hail djgpp and GNU! MST