[Info-vax] [OT] Portable operating systems, was: Re: PowerX Roadmap -

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-09-20 19:29, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 09/20/16 04:48, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2016-09-19 21:51, GreyCloud wrote:
>>> On 09/19/16 08:34, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>
>>>> Intel did design the 4-mode setup, they just made an error in the
>>>> design. Instead of correcting the design, they crippled it even more.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if AMD has the same problem.
>>>
>>> An interesting point you just brought up. AMD right now isn't exactly
>>> getting rich these days selling their current processors. Assuming one
>>> can, approach AMD with this particular question and see what is there.
>>> If AMD did it correctly, this may give AMD some hope of increasing sales
>>> in this particular arena.
>>
>> Nope. Totally pointless. People (comapnies) in general will not write
>> any code or OS that would only work specifically on AMD processors. If
>> AMD haven't already done the same as Intel, they will. Anything else
>> just don't make sense.
>>
>> And you really do not need 4 modes. I have said that for years around
>> here. Seems like VSI understood, but a lot of people still seem to want
>> to hang on to this like a religion.
>>
>
> Not totally true on the modes.  Why did Data Generals machines have 8
> modes?
> I know they went out of business, but why 8?

Why? Because they thought there was some advantage to that, I would 
assume. They also had two stacks, and seven registers related to those 
two stacks (no, I am not talking about different stacks in different modes).

Also, DG used the PC as the source to decided which mode you were 
executing in.

I can't explain their reasons for their designs. But I remember back in 
the 80s when I was looking at it that I just thought it utter madness. I 
never liked their hardware.

	Johnny