Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:11:15 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Prashant TR <prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, pmode AT egroups DOT com
Subject: Re: far pointers
In-Reply-To: <200006111037.QAA10341@bgl2.vsnl.net.in>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000611150731.24657B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Prashant TR wrote:

> > > Ok, that was not what I really meant. It was supposed to say that V86
> > > allows both DOS and protected-mode programs to run *in* protected
> > > mode.
> > 
> > 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?

> > 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 ;-).