|
| Group: |
comp.arch |
[ Post new message ] |
|
|
 |
| Author: |
Joe Pfeiffer |
| Subject: |
Re: Future architectures |
| Body: |
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
> In article <1bvdxwjvuq.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>,
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
> |>
> |> Unfortunately, Nick sometimes writes really good insights, and
> |> sometimes just blows opinions out his ass. I was more than a little
> |> annoyed when I found out that his definition of "Intel didn't do real
> |> VM until the 386" really meant "Nick has no clue what Intel 286 VM
> |> looked like".
>
> Whereas I wasn't at all annoyed when I found out that you didn't
> know the difference between real virtual memory, and the rudimentary
> mechanisms which were almost totally abandoned in the UK in the
> 1960s, and were not called virtual memory by their inventors.
>
> But I am annoyed when you make assertions about me that are false.
>
> I knew then when Intel 286 so-called virtual memory looked like,
> and I don't call it virtual memory. Nor, interestingly, did most
> of the people in IBM I talked to - they took a HELL of a long time
> to learn about virtual memory, but did eventually learn. Other
> people seem slower.
Well, no, actually. Based on you statements at the time, you appeared
to have no idea that the 286 had quite an elegant segmented VM
scheme. And when I interpreted your comments as not regarding
segmented VM as VM, you concluded I wasn't familiar with the earlier
mechanisms.
On the other hand (I realized too late that I hadn't said this in the
first place), I very much appreciated your information on IBM's (and
others') 65nm processes.
|
|
|