From: mschulter AT mach1 DOT mpu DOT com ()
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Smaller distribution archives
Date: 22 Nov 1996 20:59:48 GMT
Organization: MP Unlimited, Inc.
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <575484$e4c@news.mpu.com>
References: <199611131013 DOT XAA04799 AT papaioea DOT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz> <328AE560 DOT 6820 AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz> <328B4B98 DOT 57FD019 AT alcyone DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mach1.mpu.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Erik Max Francis (max AT alcyone DOT com) wrote:

: Furthermore, the line has to be drawn somewhere.  After all, a 286 isn't
: worth anything these days -- no protected mode.

Since the merits of non-DJGPP software might be a bit off-topic here <grin>,
and since it is true that DJGPP requires a 32-bit (386 or higher) CPU,
please let me just offer an amendment (hopefully not too unfriendly <grin>)
for the sake of accuracy.

While a 286 CPU does not support _32-bit_ protected mode, it certainly
can support 16-bit protected mode. For example, Lotus 1-2-3 3.0
(no endorsement of "look and feel" suits implied) and early releases of
OS/2 (roughly 1988-1990) ran in this type of protected mode so that they
would be compatible with the then-still-massive base of 286 computers
as well as the then-new 386 systems.

Even at that time, the advantages of 32-bit protected mode were well-known,
of course, and this was one benefit of Intel-compatible **IX systems as
opposed to the early OS/2, for example.

BTW, I see no reason to put down _any_ computer, including a TRS-80
running CP/M; but it is a legitimate question whether anyone would want
to rely on this today as their _only_ computer.

Certainly I would agree that the move to 32-bit software is as important
for DOS users as for those using other environments.

Respectfully,
Margo Schulter
mschulter AT mpu DOT com