> I don't see a reason why it should be impossible to abolish Real Mode, Segmentation and basically everything beside Long-Mode > and virtual 32 Bit-mode.
This is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium > The Operating-System-Manufactures would need a bit of time to change their operating systems to be able to start without BIOS > calls and remove the procedures to set up the flat segmentation. This is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Software_support Best Regards, Zoran On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Philipp Stanner <stan...@posteo.de> wrote: > On 30.08.2017 14:54, Peter Stuge wrote: > >> Compatibility is the only actual value of x86. >> > Hi, > I was often wondering why they don't at least try to get rid of the *very* > old stuff when it's not possible to get rid of the middle-old stuff. > > It's understandable that it's necessary to provide a 32-bit-compatibility > mode on 64-bit systems. It *was* understandable that it was necessary to > provide a 16-bit-compatbility-mode then the first 32-bit-CPUs appeared. As > far as I understood the Intel Programmer's Manual the CPUs provide a 16-bit > compatibility-mode in 64-bit-long-mode... > > I don't see a reason why it should be impossible to abolish Real Mode, > Segmentation and basically everything beside Long-Mode and virtual 32 > Bit-mode. > The Operating-System-Manufactures would need a bit of time to change their > operating systems to be able to start without BIOS calls and remove the > procedures to set up the flat segmentation. > > Intel is powerful enough to make this change I believe. The question is if > they benefit from changing x86, making it more modern. > > By the way we shouldn't forget that behind the legacy-compatibility-stuff > and the microcode a very strong, efficient and modern RISC-machine is alive. > > P. > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot