| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<memo.20241006163428.19028W@jgd.cix.co.uk> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Byte ordering Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 16:34 +0100 (BST) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 33 Message-ID: <memo.20241006163428.19028W@jgd.cix.co.uk> References: <2024Oct6.150415@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Reply-To: jgd@cix.co.uk Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2024 17:34:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67ae6f88397a883e2294abe3d6c6dee9"; logging-data="1356003"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cRj7dOwuaOjDFt7owGLE8wJkEsLEC7TI=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:jZOU6Z6Wch5Y5I52q8goFkJOBqE= X-Clacks-Overhead-header: GNU Terry Pratchett Bytes: 2471 In article <2024Oct6.150415@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > I find it hard to believe that many customers would ask Intel > for something the 80286 protected mode with segments limited > to 64KB, and even if, that Intel would listen to them. This > looks much more like an idee fixe to me that one or more of > the 286 project leaders had, and all customer input was made > to fit into this idea, or was ignored. Either half-remembered from older architectures, or re-invented and considered viable a decade after the original inventors had learned better. > Another interpretation is that MS went faithfully into OS/2, > assigning not just their Xenix team to it (although according > to Wikipedia the Xenix abandonment by MS was due to AT&T > entering the Unix market) and reportedly also assigned the best > MS-DOS developers to OS/2. They tried to stick to OS/2 for > several years, but eventually were fed up with all the bad > decisions coming from IBM, and bowed out. It's known that they split the work with IBM, such the MS would do a redesigned OS/2 that was intended to be version 3.0, while IBM concentrated on 2.0. A friend of mine was working on OS/2 within IBM at the time, until he left with serious stress and depression: the people management was not good. Then MS switched emphasis, so that the Windows API was the primary personality of OS/2 3.0, and renamed it Windows NT. That also had an OS/2 personality at the start, along with a POSIX personality. John