4 ms·
Did really anything support protected memory back then? I also am still much more bought into the power of marketing and generally focusing on getting things i
by taeric 2y ago
Did really anything support protected memory back then?
I also am still much more bought into the power of marketing and generally focusing on getting things into student's hands as the power move that Microsoft pulled off. Probably helped a ton by a lot of failed vendors along the way. It isn't that DOS and Windows were pure successes. Rather, they managed to outsource a ton of their failures onto other companies.
- rjsw 2y ago> Did really anything support protected memory back then? UNIX did, I ran it on a 386-25 from 1987.
- actionfromafar 2y agoAnd Minix on 286, but each process had only 64 kbytes.
- taeric 2y agoI was thinking before 386 machines. I probably have a poor calibration of what was contemporary to Amiga machines.
- tombert 2y agoI think the DR-DOS variants of DOS did? I also believe that OS/2 did as well. I broadly agree with everything you said though.
- sydbarrett74 2y agoOS/2 1.x supported memory protection for apps targeted for OS/2. Since 1.x was written for the 286, it put all MS-DOS apps in the same address space, so one errant app could bring down the whole MS-DOS subsystem. It would take OS/2 2.0 to exploit the 386's Virtual 8086 mode, which allowed each MS-DOS app to run isolated.
- Gormo 2y agoAll varieties of DOS supported protected memory from the early '90s onward, using the DPMI spec.
- amiga061347 2y ago> focusing on getting things into student's hands as the power move that Microsoft pulled off That's a huge part of Microsoft's success. They looked the other way regarding "piracy" to gain market share. At least in my country nobody paid for Windows at home. If students and home users had been forced to pay, the adoption of new Windows versions would fall drastically.