Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!math.fu-berlin.de!unidui!rrz.uni-koeln.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!ficc!peter From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) Subject: Re: 386BSD - what a pain to install! Message-ID: <id.GBST.RQ3@ferranti.com> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC References: <1992Sep30.035327.4082@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <id.S2QT.C03@ferranti.com> <1992Oct2.155958.29182@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:44:59 GMT Lines: 22 I've completely lost the thread of this discussion, and I'm certainly not about to argue that 286 segments are in any way desirable, but... In article <1992Oct2.155958.29182@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@icarus.weber.edu writes: > "Large model" (which differes from "Medium model" by frequent segment register > reloads) has always seemed like a kludge to me, mostly because of the 286 > being set up for 64K segments in the first place. The kludge is the 64K segments. Large model is a reasonable response. Intel even uses it (we're using Intel Fortran, PL/M, and C compilers, which is why we're still using Intel Xenix because Intel in their infinite wisdom decided that MS-DOS was a better software development platform than UNIX and dumped the UNIX compiler products (though they still use them internally: do as I say, not as I do, I suppose)) for all their languages. In any case, you can always buy a used TRS-80 model 16 and run Xenix on a 68000. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp. 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 +1 713 274 5180 Heb jij vandaag je wolf al geaaid ?