24 May
2016
24 May
'16
1:29 p.m.
On 22 May 2016 at 04:52, Guy Sotomayor Jr <ggs at shiresoft.com> wrote:
Because the 808x was a 16-bit processor with 1MB
physical addressing. I
would argue that for the time 808x was brilliant in that most other 16-bit
micros only allowed for 64KB physical.
Er, hang on. I'm not sure if my knowledge isn't good enough or if that's a
typo.
AFAIK most *8* bits only supported 64 kB physical. Most *16* bits
(e.g. 68000, 65816, 80286, 80386SX) supported 16MB physical RAM.
Am I missing something here?
I always considered the 8088/8086 as a sort of hybrid 8/16-bit processor.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)