Date:	Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:10:37 +0530 (IST)
Message-Id:	<200006111440.UAA15203@bgl2.vsnl.net.in>
From:	Prashant TR <prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com>
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com, pmode AT egroups DOT com
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000611150731.24657B-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:11:15 +0300 (IDT))
Subject:	Re: far pointers
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000611150731 DOT 24657B-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > > But that's also not very accurate: V86 is not PM, although it's
> > > close.
> > 
> > No, V86 *is* PM, and programs in V86 run at PL3. And that's why you
> > still have all the protection there inspite of running (simulating)
> > the dangerous real-mode programs.
> 
> I don't get it: are you saying that V86 is identical to PM?  I think it 
> isn't, but if you think it is, why do you mention it as a separate mode 
> in your text?

V86 *is* PM, but it is of a different kind. And that's why it's
mentioned separately.

Protected Mode is of 5 types:

PL0-3 and VM86.

> > > For newbies' sake, I'd suggest to make this distinction very clear (if
> > > you at all mention V86, which I'm not sure is a good idea).
> > 
> > Ok, so what do you suggest this should be?
> 
> Try to avoid saying "protected mode" when you mean V86.
> 
> > But FYI, myself and Alexi did decide to include *everything* about
> > protected-mode including writing extenders. But then, it definitely
> > won't come anywhere in the introduction.
> 
> Yes, that's a different (although interesting and useful) project.
> 
> Try to avoid reinventing the Intel manual ;-).

No, it won't happen that way. The Intel Manual doesn't have examples
that are good enough for people to learn. This is one of the things
we'd like to include.

- Raw text -