On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:03:45 -0400 (EDT), Kevin P Lawton wrote:
Should have dropped real mode, had the CPU start out in protected mode, and today we'd all have protected mode only BIOSs. Oh well, such is life.
And how would these computer have run DOS? Or Windows? The only OS available before 1994 or so that didn't use real mode code was OS/2. Did everybody switch over to OS/2? So how could Intel drop real mode? In fact, people's biggest complaint with OS/2 in the late 80's was OS/2 Compatibility Box: the way that it ran real-mode DOS programs. If people weren't willing to use an OS that allowed them to run a decent percentage of their old software, why would they use a computer that allowed them to run *none* of their old software!
Think about the difficulty that IBM caused for itself when they dropped ISA in favor of MicroChannel. The decision to go MicroChannel was made for almost identical reasons that you would have wanted Intel to change designs with the 286: a better way of doing things. I think the marketplace voted on which way they wanted to go...
One other point to run this into the ground: look at the success that Intel has had so far in changing their architecture with IA-64. We've been waiting for, what? 3 years now? And with what result?
In an environment as loose as the PC (as the author of Bochs I'm sure knows), anything that isn't 100% backward compatible is horribly frowned upon. Companies like Apple can change CPU designs with success because they control every detail of the hardware, OS and software. In the PC world, we aren't too open to that level of control.
Tim Massey
- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with "unsubscribe openbios" in the body of the message