Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 00:22:09 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Bryant <jbryant@unix.tfs.net> To: robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Year 2k and PC hardware Message-ID: <199812030622.AAA22863@unix.tfs.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981202152428.5892A-100000@fledge.watson.org> from Robert Watson at "Dec 2, 98 03:39:53 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply: > > anyhow, freebsd does not operate in "bootstrap" mode [real mode] like > > dos/winblowz does. the specified purpose of real mode is for > > bootstrapping into protected mode. don't worry about the bios, unless > > you use mickey mouse products from mickeysoft. > > I would disagree -- real mode is not even a very good bootstrap mode -- > it's really just so they can claim it runs DOS. There is no good reason > to boot up in a 20-bit address mode if you are just their to bootstrap to > a 32-bit virtual address mode. If it were really there to be a boostrap > mode, it would bootstrap to a physically addressed 32-bit address mode, > and then you would bump into protected mode (and virtual addressing) > later if you felt like it. Or on like on an Alpha, where the physical > memory is addressable directly via a portion of the virtual address space > (helps if you are 64-bit). No, real mode is just a cheap hack so that DOS > could run on a 386 because there were few real operating systems > available. actually i use the statement "The primary purpose of Real Mode is to set up the processor for Protected Mode Operation." on page 3-1 of the "Intel 486 DX2 Microprocessor Databook, 1992" as the reference point for my statement. btw: pages 3-1 and 3-2 are the complete documentation for real mode operation. this theme is also followed in the pentium arch/prog manual [vol 3] where they actually added a page for a total of three pages for real mode. > > > (I was also unhappy to see that my bank is not very Y2k-ready just yet :( > > > ) > > > > find a bank that is. put your money there. any firm that hasn't > > brought their systems into compliance by september 1, 1999 deserves to > > lose business and/or go bankrupt. darwinean economics. > > I agree, and am in the process of doing that now. Only I would personally > not have chosen such a poor date as Sept 1, 1999. I think any firm that > isn't in compliance by *now* is not acting responsibly. :) Good thing > they're training those air traffic controllers to do it all by hand, huh. > :) well, i see sept 1st as the point of no return... what is the first problem date, 9/9/99? jim -- All opinions expressed are mine, if you | "I will not be pushed, stamped, think otherwise, then go jump into turbid | briefed, debriefed, indexed, or radioactive waters and yell WAHOO !!! | numbered!" - #1, "The Prisoner" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inet: jbryant@tfs.net AX.25: kc5vdj@wv0t.#neks.ks.usa.noam grid: EM28pw voice: KC5VDJ - 6 & 2 Meters AM/FM/SSB, 70cm FM. http://www.tfs.net/~jbryant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HF/6M/2M: IC-706-MkII, 2M: HTX-212, 2M: HTX-202, 70cm: HTX-404, Packet: KPC-3+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812030622.AAA22863>