3 ms·
Nice. Why 32bit, not 64bit? I don't program much assembler - but after seeing how much simpler (sane) 64bit is (amd64), I'd have to be really motivated to do a
by e12e 7y ago
Nice. Why 32bit, not 64bit? I don't program much assembler - but after seeing how much simpler (sane) 64bit is (amd64), I'd have to be really motivated to do a hobby project in 16 or 32bit (for x86). So curious about that choice in today's hw world, where you'd have to hunt for real 32bit x86 hw.
- Arelius 7y agoI'd like to hear from OP also. But in my experience, x86 documentation is much more wide spread and available esp regarding system startup.
- ozkl 7y agoI chose x86 because I wanted to try the os in my ancient PCs like a Celeron 333MHz. And articles I was reading at the start was for 32bit.
- e12e 7y agoThat makes sense. It's been so long since I've seen a 32bit x86 (apart from single board industrial type stuff) - that I didn't really consider anyone would keep one around... Then again, we do have our old commodore vic 20 in a cupboard somewhere...
- tracker1 7y agoIIRC, you can't run 16bit apps in x86-64 without virtualization.