Yet the article goes about the most ass backward way of explaining 8086 segments and constructs a convoluted mental picture of dividing memory into overlapping chunks.
It's really, really simple: segments on the 8086/88 are 64k sliding windows into an 1M address space. You can move them around at 16 byte granularity.
You need more than 64k for code + data? No problem, the CPU knows when it's fetching an instruction vs when it's fetching data, you can have two sliding windows: code (CS) and data (DS). Split them apart, and it's not much different than a Harvard-style machine and gives you access to more than 64k at a time.
Still need more? No problem, the CPU has a hardware stack with dedicated push/pop/call/ret instructions and a base pointer for stack indexing. It knows when it's accessing the stack, so we can split the data window into regular data (DS) and stack data (SS). Oh, you occasionally want to copy stuff between segments or somewhere else in memory? Well, to encode 3 segments we need 2 bits anyway, let's throw in an extra data window (ES) and some DS-to-ES copy instructions.
It was a clever hack for porting existing code. But it doesn’t scale at all – you’ve just described adding four registers to a register-starved architecture in order to solve the issue for one CPU generation or so.
Segment prefixes were rarely needed and you didn't need to spend any of the precious mod/rm bits on segment registers. The GPR count was limited to 8 partly because of the 3 bits allocated to specifying them and partly because of limited die space. Segment registers only added slightly to the latter cost.
still worth it because otherwise you have essentially no software advantage over competing architectures (at the time, mainly Motorola 6800 successors and the PDP-11 architecture)
Plus all this pointer juggling would have been more or less ok (or not ok, but doable) when programming in assembly, but for a compiler it would have been a recipe for disaster...
I'm sure a modern compiler would have no problem with it, but in 1980 optimizer technology wasn't there yet. Modern compilers use more memory that engineers would dare dream of in 1980.
By having no problem I mean we know enough about writing an optimizer to write such a thing. I don't think any compiler does, just that they could.
I recall turbo (Pascal I guess but I was a kid and this was 40 years ago) having options, small for all in one. Then code and data in different segments, but only one each. Then code in one but multiple data, and finally multitude of both. I probably remember the options a bit off but there is enough to state that compilers could handle segments. Though they didn't optimize it well and so the smallest option was fastest
Turbo Pascal 3.x always had a single code segment, a single data segment, a single stack segment + a heap. Heap allocations were paragraph aligned (ofs=0). All pointers were far pointers.
Turbo Pascal 4.0 and up had one code segment per module (that they called units). It still had a single data segment and a single stack segment + a heap. Heap allocations were still paragraph aligned and all pointers were still far pointers.
Turbo/Borland Pascal 7.0 also supported 16-bit protected mode. I don't know if heap allocations had ofs=0 there.
None of them had "huge" arrays/pointers where pointers can point to things bigger than 64K -- at the cost of a lot of instructions for pointer arithmetic and array indexing.
Like I said, my memory of 40 years ago isn't good. However it is still enough to prove the point, at least C compilers of the era could handle segments.
I think you are missing the entire point of the article (which I kinda agree with), and just repeating the popular wisdom.
In the era a machine with "object addressing" sounded like a perfectly valid futuristic design (what a Lisp machine strived to be; I guess today you would call it tagged memory of some kind). The 8086 is not that, but the original design would have allowed to evolve it into something like that.
The article's point is that since programmers simply treated it as a sliding window (instead of an opaque object handle), the plan could not be implemented, and the half-assed thing became stuck.
Having seen other Intel RISC designs, I fully agree with the premise.
But with only four segment registers, you couldn't treat it as that - not unless you only had four objects. So treating it as a sliding window was all you actually could do with it.
With 6-7 general purpose registers you could have; since anyway only three of them were usable for addressing you constantly had to load from memory. just use MOV ES instead of MOV BX to load a pointer and you actually got to increase your GPRs by one or two. Nobody did it except for larger memory areas which were allocated using farmalloc() or the INT 21h allocator.
I remember that at some point compiler ads would brag that the new "Microland" compiler could do "segment pointers" where only the segment was stored. I don't remember when it was, but it was fairly late in the DOS era.
In retrospect, they seem so useful and obvious but apparently not. I guess the type of person who thinks near/far/huge is extremely complicated found segment pointers even more complicated.
That's almost like saying that with 2 registers you can only do additions with 2 operands. True, but missing the picture. The number of segments is not limited by the number of segment registers, or even (gasp!) by the number of segment descriptors.
I seem to recall at the time that flat memory was self evidently a better idea. It's not like people were sitting around going "gee I can't think of any better way to do memory addressing that this" until some genius suggests "how about flat?!?!?" Everyone knew flat was best but were stuck with 8086 crap.
I was drooling over the MC68000. I had a pre-release reference manual from 1979 and it was the most awesome chip around. Atari and Commodore and Apple used it after their 6502 systems. Arcade games used it after their 6502 and 6809 days. The only reason x86 became popular was because IBM put it in the PC - not for any technical reasons.
Not entirely self-evidently. Position independent code was slower at the time and avoiding having to patching function addresses at load time is a net win.
More importantly, there’s backwards compatibility. By the time the 8086 came out, people had spent serious money on getting binary-only software (WordStar cost hundreds of dollars, for example). “Buy this computer, and you can keep running the software you paid for, but faster” was a good selling point.
I wonder why couldn't Intel simply introduce single 'offset' register for apps ported from 8080, and make all other registers 20-24bit. Why bother with 4 different registers and all that segmentation nightmare?
Very few benefits to a clunky 24 or 20 bit word size; now it costs more and is a bizarre boutique architecture in a world where it needs to compete with 8 bit Z80s and 6502s.
A single one would require a ported app to understand that it worked with bigger registers in order to take advantage of the bigger address space. Some really old computers did work like that, but to allow several apps to coexist in memory, not to give each app more addressable memory.
The segment register solution does both almost for free in most cases. Code gets a segment, data gets a segment, stack gets a segment... and you are free to use all of memory if you bother to use the ES register. In many cases, that could be isolated to a small piece of the program so that was also quite cheap.
As someone who wrote code in assembler, Pascal, and C for those machines: it wasn't at all a nightmare. It was quite easy and simple.
Personally I enjoyed writing assembly with segments. You can have 64k of code, 64k of data and 64k of stack without trying. So long as no individual data structure is larger than 64k there is no essential difficulty working with 16 bit pointers.
When I think back I think it would be fun to have a hierarchical structure where composite data structures (think an array or hash map) are referred to with a pointer that goes into the segment register and you index inside a data structure with a regular pointer.
I went from a 6809-based Color Computer 3 circa 1987 to a 80286. I am kicking myself today because my Uncle Bob told me the job that paid me $1,200 to get a new machine created upwards of $60,000 of value so I could have asked for enough to get a 386!
I was told not to waste any time with 80286 protected mode by all the experts I talked to. I can't complain a lot because that 80286 was crazy fast. Fast enough that when I got another job to develop some software for a teacher at my school I was able to run a Z80 emulator to develop for CP/M and get performance several times better than any real Z80!
I loved programming it too, the 286 had some 16-bit data paths that the 8086 didn't have which I took advantage of in assembly and in copy/move/zero routines that I used with Turbo Pascal which I thought was a much nicer language to C but when I got to college I switched to C because it was portable to the Sun 68k and later SPARC machines we had.
Flat memory was a better idea but it wasn't a cheaper idea, and cheaper beats good. A casual Googling shows a price of $2,880 for a IBM PC in ~1982 dollars versus $8,900 for a Sun Microsystems Sun-1 with a MC68000.
Also from a casual Google, an IBM PC launched in 1985 (picking the XT 5160-078 as an example) was around $4,995 at launch. Compare that to two 68000-based computers also launched in 1985: the Amiga 1000 launched at $1,295 and the Atari 520ST launched at $600.
These computer system prices - Sun, IBM, Commodore, Atari - came from the market segments the manufacturers aimed to sell to, rather than a cost saving enabled by cumbersome memory models.
The cumbersome memory model is just a historical accident; the 8086 designers wanted 8080 backwards compatibility so they could sell to former 8080 users, IBM did not require this. IBM would've picked the 68000 had it been "production ready" at the time, they did not reject flat memory on cost grounds!
Are you sure IBM didn't care about 8080 compatibility? The PC was released in August 1981, a full 4 years before any of the other machines you speak of. That XT 5160-078 you speak of is a cost-reduced model with no hard drive from IBM, allowing dealers to install a compatible hard drive from a different supplier.
By 1985, the PC AT (286) had already been out since August 1984. And the original XT was October of 1983. And the XT itself is literally the same as a PC with more expandability: 8 slots instead of 5, beefier PSU, room for a hard drive.
It's unclear if IBM or for that matter anyone would have been able to start designing a 68000-based machine and bring it to market by the fall of 1981. Sun brought the Sun 1 to market in May 1982, so about 9 months later, and with a much higher price.
And what did the Sun run? UNIX. What did IBM run? Quick ports of the last several years of CP/M software made possible because DOS 1 was specifically designed to implement a CP/M-like API, and the 8086 was specifically designed to allow porting of 8080 assembler code directly to small model 8086 code.
I picked 1985 specifically because of the Amiga/Atari 68000 machines, to show that it's not about price. Had Sun wanted to target the games-machine market, they could've designed for, built and sold a $600 machine based on a 68000 in 1981. Their pricing was because they went for the UNIX workstation market; they also designed and produced their own custom MMU because Motorola's 68851 didn't work correctly for them
Motorola were selling 68000s for $125 each. Steve Jobs talked them down to around $15 each. (Macintosh launch price: $2,495 in 1984) Memory model did not dictate price. Target market and vendor management did.
IBM would have been entirely capable of launching a TMS9900-based PC or a 68000-based PC, had these chips been in full production in 1978. The software and OS for the IBM PC was an afterthought, IBM settled on the CPU first. Had they picked the 68000, they'd have been contracting out for 68000-based OSes.
> Selection of a 16-bit microprocessor by the IBM team couldn’t have been much of a debate. The Motorola 68K, as it was later known, was undoubtedly the hands-down winner. It had the largest logical address space, which was even more important than the minimum 16-bit internal architecture. It was also easily expandable to a full-fledged 32-bit architecture.
> So why aren’t we all using 68K-based computers today? The answer comes back to being first to market. Intel’s 8088 may have been imperfect but at least it was ready, whereas the Motorola 68K was not. And IBM’s thorough component qualification process required that a manufacturer offer up thousands of “production released” samples of any new part so that IBM could perform life tests and other characterizations. IBM had hundreds of engineers doing quality assurance, but component qualifications take time. In the first half of 1978, Intel already had production-released samples of the 8088. By the end of 1978, Motorola’s 68K was still not quite ready for production release.
So it wasn't about architecture, and it wasn't even about price. It was about time-to-market. The 8088 was in full production and the 68000 was not quite there, at precisely the time IBM wanted to create a PC. The 8088 might've been even quicker to market had they left out the memory segmentation, but Intel had their own business reasons (wanting to sell to existing 8080 customers) for adding it.
-- Everyone knew flat was best but were stuck with 8086 crap.--
This! Thats one of the most interesting things to me: Actually very often in the IT-world, the worst competitor won the race while better solutions were known and available:
Microsoft, Intel etc.
Esp. that MS won for decades while making mainly a very bad OS, though they have some good enterprise products.
How would the world look, if Unix/BSD would have won this race?
There was a Microsoft operating system for protected mode 80286 in 1983. It was Xenix 286; it was basically 7th Edition Unix without the branding; and it was touted as the multiuser operating system that MS-DOS would be the gateway to. How would the world look if Microsoft had won the race? (-:
I really wonder if Unix is best we can do. Or is it also worst? So in the end two of the worst options won. It did make sense back in time. But could it have been replaced with something better later?
Don't open this can of worms. (-: There were endless discussions of this in the 1990s. Years's worth.
Scroll down to the 'What Is the Hurd?' section of this announcement post from 1996 and pay particular attention to its first and last sentences. That's the allusion here.
Adding more features to OS is for some use cases a benefit, for other it's a barrier. For one it might be less work to get what you want ,for other it might be more code between you and hardware that just slows it down
Unix-like simplicity is exactly that, for some use cases directness is a benefit, for others it means extra work to do on top to get what you want.
If you just want a house, getting a raw foundation to work with is a lot to build on top, you have to bring the rest of the walls up yourself.
But if you want exactly the house you want, getting entirely different house to start with and changing it is far more work than starting from simple foundation and building up.
Overall unix "here is relatively simple operating system that doesn't force you but needs some things to be built on top to hit your use case" probably IS the best abstraction, despise not being "best" at really anything. There is reason we build houses from concrete and wood, and not carbon fiber and titanium alloys
There have been some very nice OSes in the past (e.g. AmigaOS, BeOS, QNX, Plan 9) that all failed to the Wintel juggernaut. MacOS only just made it out alive.
I wouldn't say Unix itself is the best. It suffered a war between competing implementations pushing their own proprietary components. POSIX is the compromise.
But, ultimately, what is good about it today is not so much "Unix" (the proprietary OS from Bell Labs and its heritage), but specifically Linux and the BSDs. Why? Because they are actually open. They are freedom incarnate. You can add anything you like to them, today, without asking any permission. Not just their kernels, but their userlands too (Linux obviously varies by distro here). There's even a chance you can get your changes adopted upstream (unless it's GNOME), much more than you'd ever get from a proprietary company's OS.
So, while there's always room for improvement on the technical aspects of the OS, the social and political aspects of Linux and the BSDs make them the best we can achieve as a society.
There are many crappy design decisions in Unix, Posix, Linux, MacOS, that have been known and worked around for decades (see the Unix Hater's Handbook). One example would be async IO, which has been famously bad in Unix, and Linux alone has tried 2 different generations of solutions - with the newer one, io_uring, being suspiciously similar to Windows' decades old IOCP. Fork/exec is infamous as a needlessly complex process creation API, requiring huge effort in the kernel just to handle the most common case of simply launching a new process. The traditional Unix security paradigm of simple user based file permissions is extremely weak and has required numerous solutions on top to handle realistic security scenarios - e.g. to protect a user's files from being tampered in unexpected ways by a process launched by that user (SELinux, jails, namespaces, etc).
I agree that Windows is crappy, but that doesn't mean that Linux and MacOS aren't also crappy in their own ways (not to mention iOS, Android).
Especially the enshittification over the decades:
All the bloat (XBog Game Icon on Win Server - really?), their update politics tangled with higher hardware specs for running the same stuff slower than before.
I do not understand how can one crash their own product/baby that way - and no, this must be Hanlors Razors: They are doing it with (sophisticated) intend, not by accident (or coincidence)
Being technically best has long been known to not be correlated to market success in the way that makes logical sense to technical people who feel confused about this.
Flat is not necessarily a better idea. In 1978, a 32 bit CPU would be stupidly expensive. The use case for > 64k was to simply have code and data split apart, and also have some MMIO, so basically 192k-256k of addressing needed.
Segmentation meant programs could remain essentially 16 bit with all the benefits to that like smaller code size.
Except than later we returned to a sort-of segmented memory. That is of course paging, our programs allocates pages of memory that are a fixed size (4096 bytes) and are arranged in memory or in swap space how the OS decides.
We just have the illusion of a "flat" memory model, but it's not really flat, the CPU and the operating system does an important job in translating our flat memory model in something that is not flat at all. All that address translation work could have been avoided if we accepted to not have a flat memory model and be aware that our memory is divided in pages.
Basically we are doing in hardware the job of managing a non flat memory space that the programmer, or well, the compiler (or these days you would say the AI agent) could probably to better because it knows how to allocate things to avoid being them on page boundaries, and all of this to give the illusion to the programmer that it's working with a flat memory (except when it does something wrong and gets a segmentation fault, that, as the name suggests, is an hint that at the end the memory is not really flat).
In turn though, the thinking needed to handle non-flat memory is a complexity that most programmers cannot handle - and even those who could probably should spend their brain power on the complex parts of their program not managing memory. Best to leave that hard part to a few experts instead of make everyone understand it.
The above is very similar to the argument that you should use a garbage collected langauge.
Paging is not part of the CPU architecture. On CPUs of the time the MMU that brought paging to the party often was a completely separate peripheral that the CPU interacted with to gate access to RAM. By contrast segments are an integral part of the CPU instruction set and your code either has to limit itself to 64KB or your application had to be aware of and include logic to manage segments.
As an aside, the memory model is flat, it's just not physically linear when implementing virtual memory addressing.
1992-me hates the author. Coming from 68k assembly, x86 was a nightmare. And together with the ridiculous number of registers, segments made up a huge chunk of that horrible experience.
The segment model seems clever if you assume that you never have an object that is larger than 64kb. And once you have that you need to care about segment overflow, pointer comparisons no longer work, everything now has to carry around segment+offset instead of just offset, and so on. And if you want an example of a >=64kb object - the html alone for that page is one.
A lot of that is just bloat that you wouldn't have had back then. But it could still be handled by an 8086, not by storing the raw HTML in memory at all, but parsing it as it loads. Each DOM node would be its own object with child pointers, with attributes and names all converted into binary numbers of (at most) 32 bits each.
64K of actual text content in a single node could be reached in some documents, but it's not that small, more than a chapter of a typical book.
What was always a problem for segmented memory was graphics, at least if you wanted higher resolution than 320x200 at 256 colors. But you could have a segment pointer to each row of pixels instead of an entire image, as long as it would still fit within 1 MB (16 MB in the 286 protected mode).
True, graphics is a better example of a period-correct >=64k work, but the point is that there are multiple things where you don't expect the data to be that big until it suddenly is.
What is the difference between the segmentation model used by Intel and the banking model used by a lot of consoles? I've worked with the code of a couple of NES and GBC games, and while banking could be annoying, I never saw it as a particularly difficult model to follow and use. It did require more planning for the various functionality, but it wasn't even the most complex or difficult thing about developing for consoles.
> and while banking could be annoying, I never saw it as a particularly difficult model to follow and use
Segments aren’t conceptually difficult, either, but definitely could be annoying, and certainly were, if you had to access data structures larger than 64 kB.
As to the differences:
- you had four segment registers that you could ‘point’ anywhere, allowing you to access four 64kB regions of memory without changing them (the equivalent of bank switching) (one always was used for accessing the instruction to run, one for accessing the stack, but you could use those for other purposes, too (Could, not SHould)
- segments can overlap. You could set DS and ES to the same value, for example.
Segments also can be moved at 16-byte granularity. If you wanted, you could have DS address address memory range 0x0000 ≤ x < 0xFFFF and SS address memory range 0x0010 ≤ x < 0x1000F.
Banking is different in that the banks swap in and out. The 8086 segments were all available at the same time once you loaded the segment register, and they overlapped.
Banking was one solution to the 1MB limit; was it extended or expanded mode? I can no longer remember, but one of those gave you a 64kb window somewhere above the 640kb limit in the address space not used by either video RAM or BIOS. That window could then be paged around the rest of memory.
Expanded memory is identical to banking. It wasn’t particularly popular since it’s a pain to program and compilers never got around to automatically generating code for it.
*: not actually 4GB, because that makes the kernel code harder to write and tends to lead to bad performance and lots of bugs. They could get 2GB max with the default settings and 3GB with a special configuration.
On the NES, most mappers would control which 16Kbyte blocks from the PRG ROM appeared in the upper ($C000) or lower ($8000) block of the NES ROM space. Often the upper block was fixed because of IRQ/RES/NMI vectors. I think later mappers allowed 8K blocks. So you only had those fixed windows at those fixed granularities, not the 16-byte granular sliding window 8086 offered.
I don't know about DMG/GBC/GBA games. Some very interesting stuff happened on those platforms (e.g. Game Boy Camera, and some game that lets you control a sewing machine in Japan?) and I bet a pure sliding window mapper exists.
The PC Engine/Turbografx-16 had platform support for mapping (specific CPU instructions did it) but it was 8 fixed windows in the CPUs 64K address space that pointed to 8K size offsets in the ROM I believe. SNES had a 24-bit address space and DMA to copy things to VRAM so not sure mappers were really on that platform.
Author comes from some weird assumption that software is some annoying byproduct of making hardware, rather than a fact that the hardware is made to run software and making it easier is a goal.
It was just a hack. Hack to delay migration to 32 bit architecture. Effective one, but hack nonetheless
I think it's more like marking a transition in how we thought about software.
When I was learning C, we did things at a reasonably low level. I was learning data structures, and building things like binary trees out of things like structs, and the structs were fixed-sized memory blocks holding pointers to regions of memory which were either more structs or data fields. All reasonable stuff. But we weren't writing for a particular machine. We were writing for the idea of a machine, and part of that idea was that the machine had a flat memory model. This really struck me when I compiled my homework (parse some data into a tree) on the departmental SunOS server, and it worked fine, and then took it home and compiled it with Borland C for DOS on my 386 and it segfaulted on the same data. That was when I learned to hate segmented memory, but looking back, it seems to me that I learned the wrong lesson.
I learned to write software for a lowish-level model of an idealized computer. The generation before me was always writing software for a specific computer, consisting of a specific set of hardware. The software was always the goal, but the nature of the task was defined by the hardware. Things like memory segmentation were facts about the hardware, and the available hardware varied widely at the time in a way modern hardware doesn't, really, except maybe in the embedded space.
It might have worked better if x86 had general-purpose registers where every register could work as a segment. Or maybe just many more segment registers. But with only two data segment registers to play with and quite cubersome (and slow!) loads, most software just chose not to bother.
For its time it was a decent idea. Software was smaller and simpler. But today (and even before 64-bit) software is larger, more complex, we also need memory protection / isolation and more flexible memory allocation / sharing, so paging memory was not introduced for nothing.
I seem to remember that memory segments came with a permission system (read-only, read/write, execute) in 'protected mode'. Probably only added in the 286 though (I was always more of an m68k guy at that time).
Maybe (I think it's possible in protected mode), but it still has an allocation problem, imagine there are programs A, B, C in the memory. Later, A and C are unloaded, leaving 2 free holes, totaling in 2MB. Now you want to load a 2MB program, but there is no unfragmented 2MB free block. The only solution I see, is to shift some loaded programs, which might be slow and even risky. Paging makes this problem much easier. Also, paging makes permissions and memory sharing more granular.
There is no such thing as a "2MB program".... all you have is a program composed of <=64K segments, which are easy enough to fit into the hole.
If you do need something approaching a 2MB block of memory, you don't need a contiguous range of memory, what you need is a contiguous range of selectors, which is a different (and probably easier) problem to solve.
but without virtual memory you can't move them around and so program that wants to allocate 2MB of 64k segments can't run if there is no 2MB continuos hole
I should preface this by saying I'm taking about x86 segmentation in general. On the 8086 you're right, but the 8086 can't address 2MB of memory to begin with. On the 80286 in protected mode, the situation is different in the way I'm about to describe.
The memory itself doesn't have to be contiguous.
2MB of 64K segments maps to 32 segments. So you need 32 locations in physical memory capable of storing 64K.
The programming model for addressing that block of memory necessarily includes both segment selectors and offsets. The segment selectors are indices into a segment table that contains the base address of each of the 32 segments. As long as the segment selectors themselves can be allocated contiguously in the segment table, you have enough to be able to compute which segment you need for which address in the 2MB range. It's the indirection through the segments table that maps it to physical addresses that do not need to be contiguous.
And this is the problem, it was very painful just to walk through a 200 KB buffer. This required compiler/runtime tricks, different selector increments in real vs protected mode, and special pointer types. Paging later made this kind of thing look like one flat array, a thing segmentation could not: making non-contiguous physical RAM appear contiguous to the program.
> And this is the problem, it was very painful just to walk through a 200 KB buffer. This required compiler/runtime tricks, different selector increments in real vs protected mode, and special pointer types.
Most of that could be (and often was) hidden by the tooling. If you needed to bypass it, you could, but you didn't need to. That's not very different from today... there's a lot of hidden magic that can be bypassed if you need to for whatever reason.
I'd argue that these are useful engineering abstractions that made the best of a less than ideal situation. (The reality of the world being that there are no "ideal" situations... you have to work with what you have at the moment to solve the problem you have. These days, I'd argue that a pointer into a 'flat' memory space is counter productive to the extent it hides issues around cache hierarchy, NUMA, etc. In 1986, we had to worry that a flat memory space looked discontiguous. In 2026, we have to worry the a discontiguous memory space looks flat.
OK, but we spent a decade having to worry about this garbage, until the tooling finally caught up. You always had to keep it in the back of your mind if you wrote PC software. Even if you just ran PCs, you had to worry about the compatibility between your OS, your "DOS extender", and your programs.
There were literally millions of man-hours wasted on segment registers. A kludge that helped Intel conquer the world, but what a filthy, disgusting architecture, and what a waste of everybody's time and brain power.
> OK, but we spent a decade having to worry about this garbage, until the tooling finally caught up.
This was less about tooling than it was about economics - there was 32-bit hardware available in the personal computer space in 1984, if not before. The issue was cost. In today's currency, a 32-bit capable Mac was $8,000 with 128K. The first 32-bit capable PC was closer to $20,000.
That's a heavy lift in a world where a segmented architecture machine costs a fraction of that amount, runs software you might already have, and works the same way as your co-worker's machine.
> There were literally millions of man-hours wasted on segment registers.
A software developer in 1986 was not forced to deal with segment registers... but they often chose to deal with them to gain access a (much) bigger audience of potential customers for their software.
> A kludge that helped Intel conquer the world, but what a filthy, disgusting architecture, and what a waste of everybody's time and brain power.
The other side of the coin is that (for reasons I state above), segmented architectures got more capable software into more hands more quickly. It arguably did a lot for end users.
Intel wanted to go full 32-bit with capability-like segments right after 8080 with i432. It took way too much time to design, so they released 8086 as a stair-step to 432. It still took too much time, so they released 286. And when i432 was ready it turned out painfully slow anyway and x86 was completely entrenched because of PC platform so they bite the bullet.
Any protected mode (if enabled). It was introduced with the 286.
The operating system/DOS extender could choose to let tasks (programs) run with the highest privileges, which would turn off some of the checks but not all of them -- you still needed valid selectors into valid slots in the descriptor tables.
If I'm not mistaken 286's protected mode wasn't really that popular because it breaks real mode DOS programs. Meanwhile, 386's 32-bit protected mode with paging and virtual 8086 mode was a big success.
I had to use it to do image processing on a 256MB image buffer back in the 1980s in assembly language. It was absolutely hideous. Give me a flat 32 bit memory address space any day (e.g. MC68000 around the same time.)
> I had to use it to do image processing on a 256MB image buffer back in the 1980s in assembly language.... Give me a flat 32 bit memory address space any day (e.g. MC68000 around the same time.)
Huh?
There were no segmented x86 machines capable of addressing 256MB of RAM, aside from the 386 (maybe).
If you had a 386 and the $130K of memory your statement implies, you probably also could afford a Unix (or something else) license to get to that 32-bit address space. (If you weren't doing it all in memory, then you're having to depending on paging stuff out to disk, implying you either have a real OS or a flat memory model isn't enough to save you since you're manually having to page stuff to disk and back anyway.)
That's a super strange scenario you're describing.
Probably talking about swapping it in from some external datastore. These days you would open the file and dump it into a single buffer and rip across it, and not even really stress about it. Even 256 meg of hard drive. That would have been impressively expensive in the 80s.
Back then you had to chunk it out and fiddle with the offsets. Even then you still would have had to manage loading out the next chunk.
If my memory is right 1MB of memory in the early 90s was like 200-300 per meg. Would have to dig up a computer shopper and look.
> Even 256 meg of hard drive. That would have been impressively expensive in the 80s.
I only have a couple reference points around this scale:
My dad's company had a system set up with a searchable index of a bunch of legal testimony. It was a Compaq Deskpro 386 running Unix with an attached 1GB disk. The 1GB disk set up was as big as the machine itself.
A few years later, I worked with a Cyber mainframe equipped with around 30GB of total attached disk storage. The disk array literally filled a room.
256MB disk on an 80's PC would have definitely been quite a bit.
I remember my dad bought a 500MB hard drive for our Apple IIgs. It cost like $500-600 as I recall, not cheap by any means. I remember thinking that no way would we ever fill it up - which, to be fair, we never did. 500MB would fill up instantly now, but programs and data were so much smaller back then that it lasted until the computer eventually stopped being used.
That would make more sense. I was trying to imagine what sort of (custom?) hardware would accommodate that amount of memory back then. That was large storage even for mainframes the time. (The Cray 2 in the mid-1980's had 2GB, which was considered notably large.)
They could have used 16 bit segments with no overlap. It would have a 16 bit offset register + a 16 bit segment selector register with the top 12 bits reserved (always 0). 16 bit software would run as usual in a single segment, while larger programs would use both registers for 20 bit addresses.
286 could then use the next 4 bits from the segment register to allow 16 MB address space and 386 could use all of them for 4GB. And wouldn't it be nice if 386 had 64KB pages (1 segment)?
That wouldn't have worked, the point was to pack data in memory. Even on 64kb computers, MS-DOS 1.x loaded .COM files at the bottom of available memory and allowed using the "familiar" CALL 5 interface even if the program was not loaded at physical address 0x100 (which is part of the interrupt table on x86). MS-DOS 2.x augmented that with TSR (terminate and stay resident) programs that could relocate themselves to use the minimal amount of memory at 16-byte offsets.
The 68000 was a complete break so it opted for relocatable code (which also needed more registers, and in fact the 68k had 16 instead of 8).
Did anyone else find the AI written style of this offputting?
The original 20 bit vision of the 8086 was when memory was very expensive and they expected typical high end machines to have 128K of memory.
Intel’s assembler was designed so you could have up to 128K of code with a “shared” segment in the middle that either side could reach with near (16 bit only) pointers to call commonly shared routines, and more rarely executed code existed on either end.
In addition data could be its own segment, and/or memory mapped I/O outside of the 128K space.
But memory got so cheap that nobody bothered with this, and the performance gains of writing code that way wasn’t worth the effort. X86 code was compact enough most programs could cram their code into 64k anyway, or 64k per functional unit with calls between them being rare.
The real tragedy is they went for 20 bit instead of 24 bit. 8086 with 16MB of addressable space would have been a very different world and would have made little difference if there use. (Paragraphs would have been 256 bytes, the same size as a page; most data structures would have been fine with that.)
"generally make it flow" is exactly the problem. It's a process of smoothing over any interesting features of the text to replace them with plastic. It's submerging the actual information you wish to convey under a layer of low-entropy noise. The whole signal may still be there, but having to find it under a uniform glossy finish is work for the reader. It's work you didn't need to delegate to the reader.
LLMs generate low-entropy text. That's their entire purpose. But good writing isn't about being as low-entropy as possible. It's about producing peaks and valleys. As a person who's been participating in human-to-human communication your entire life, you probably have a pretty well-developed sense of how to structure the flow of a piece of communication. The small arcs with their ebbs and flows of tension and density provide the reader a rough surface that gives them enough traction to easily move from point to point. Don't let an LLM smooth out all the gaps. It makes it hard for a reader to keep their footing in the text.
> As a person who's been participating in human-to-human communication your entire life, you probably have a pretty well-developed sense of how to structure the flow of a piece of communication.
Not OP, but this is where you're wrong. The vast majority of people, myself included, have difficulty structuring communication for effectiveness to a wide audience. When I manage to pull it off I'm very proud of the work, but I can't just sit down and do it. Review with an LLM helps me find those places where it CLANKS, distracting the reader, taking them out of the flow. This is why every professional writer has an editor; good communication is quite hard.
He's not writing the bible. He's writing a blog post about segment registers. It's fine if there's a sharp edge here or there. You're probably better at communication than you think, and your readers are probably less picky than you're imagining. An occasional sharp edge in your text is not the end of the world.
I've reviewed what I originally wrote and I prefer the text I published. Sure, I could review it all myself (indeed I used to) but that takes time and it was becoming a barrier to actually publishing stuff. Maybe I'd have got around to finishing it in a few months.
I don't use AI to write for me. I hate people who do that.
Yeah. My challenge is how to distinguish from folks like you versus pure AI generated stuff. (I’ve added you to my mental whitelist, though, so I expect to enjoy posts from you in the future despite the AI tells in the grammar.)
I once developed for PC-GEOS, which wanted all memory in exactly 8K sized blocks. I wrote a set of C macros that presented an array-of-arrays as a single collection by using mod/divide operations on the index.
You can do the equivalent of the hypothetical ADSC instruction I mentioned in another post using normal instructions. It's just that you need an uncomfortable amount.
The author assumes the way to keep segments going with larger memory would have been to change the amount of overlap, but it would have also been possible to make an 80286 where the segment registers were > 16bits, and everything else is 16 bits like before. Now you have extra segments that are still paragraphs apart and existing software could still function (you'd need new instruction variants to move data into and out of the enlarged portion of the segment registers.. call them ECS, EDS, or whatever). Anyway, just a thought.
The 8086 was a stopgap measure to accommodate the fact the iAPX432 was in the middle of turning into the disaster it did. Given the engineering resources and timelines involved in the 8086, it wasn't a bad compromise approach.
> But more importantly it kept the x86 world for too long in that dead end that was 8086 mode programming
>
> "Oh if developers would just..." They won't. They haven't. And they will not ever.
8086 real mode programming in the mainstream lasted from 1981 until 1991 or so. The last 35 years have 32-bit (and later 64-bit) flat model addressing with pages for the most part. Seems like a reasonable transition period, really.
> In hindsight maybe a binary level translator from 8080 to 8086 would have worked better (and be simple enough)
Part of the reason they liked the segmented model is that it was possible to set the segments to the same value and then ignore them entirely. That gave a programming model for the 8086 that was sufficiently close to the 8080 that it was possible to use a sort of cross assembler to do something like what you suggest. You could then opt into 8086 specific instructions and segmentation as you needed. (Which took a few years... the first IBM PC's shipped with as little as 16K of RAM.)
But what should Intel have done? They needed a CPU that can run 8080 code but with more memory. Also it's the year ~1980 and we're limited to the technology of the age.
A system with 64k sized windows seems unavoidable.
If you extend the size of the address registers, 8080 code will only run in the first 64k, or require some kind of current window register.
An 8080 mode might have worked but that would have been expensive.
> Also it's the year ~1980 and we're limited to the technology of the age.
Tbf the Motorola 68000 which was released around the same time (1979) had a proper linear address space with 32-bit address registers (of which 24 bits were wired up).
Also the 8086 was intended as a cheap and temporary stop gap until Intel's "proper" 32-bit CPU architecture was ready for prime time (the doomed iAPX 432).
New platforms were 68000, old platforms with legacy code just wanted access to more memory, so 8086 segments allowed 64kb chunks. A hack only usable by folks that still wanted to run their old 64kb programs.
It would be a piece of trivia today if motorola were not 6 months late which forced IBM in frustration to change tracks to Intel and MS DOS instead (which worked on 8086). That 6 month drlay created WinTel of today.
It's not all that different from the memory pages we have today, except that the 'segment' addressing has become a lot more complex under the hood (multi-level page tables) and a lot simpler at the surface (by merging the 'segment-' and page-address bits into a single virtual address).
PS: and segmented memory wasn't all that different from the memory banking used before in 8-bit home computers to address more than 64 KBytes, except that the memory mapping hardware was implemented outside the CPU.
> It's not all that different from the memory pages we have today
An MMU gives you a flat addressing model. There is no comparison. 8086 segments are rigidly locked to a 64KB window that goes forward in memory 16 bytes for every segment (so segmented address 1234:5678 is linear address $12340 + $5678 = $179B8)
It didn't do this to offer a useful feature like an MMU. It did this to allow code that doesn't know segment registers exist to think they're still running on an 8-bit Z80. What a waste of potential. The 68000 didn't pretend to be a 6502.
The 80286 introduced protected mode with "segment descriptors", but this is well after MMUs existed on other CPUs, it didn't invent virtual memory. Only the 80386 offered a 32-bit flat memory model.
If you want to see something to make you weep, look at the MS-DOS version of unzip. It has to do all kinds of crazy, just to allocate 64KB of RAM and get all 64KB, not 8 bytes less. And it's still locked into a memory access model that will not let it ever address more than 64KB of any one object. It's why MS-DOS was viewed as a toy OS for a toy computer.
#if defined(__TURBOC__) && !defined(OS2)
#include <alloc.h>
/* Turbo C malloc() does not allow dynamic allocation of 64K bytes
* and farmalloc(64K) returns a pointer with an offset of 8, so we
* must fix the pointer. Warning: the pointer must be put back to its
* original form in order to free it, use zcfree().
*/
...
static ptr_table table[MAX_PTR];
/* This table is used to remember the original form of pointers
* to large buffers (64K). Such pointers are normalized with a zero offset.
* Since MSDOS is not a preemptive multitasking OS, this table is not
* protected from concurrent access. This hack doesn't work anyway on
* a protected system like OS/2. Use Microsoft C instead.
*/
That's a limitation of the Turbo C library, as the comment says. DOS memory allocation functions take the size in 16-byte "paragraphs", and return a segment, with the allocated memory starting at offset zero in that segment.
> In hindsight maybe a binary level translator from 8080 to 8086 would have worked better (and be simple enough)
Many programs written in assembly language used self modifying code back then. It saved RAM and improved performance. All programs that used such trickery would have broken by a binary translator.
Don't know why you're being voted down - you're correct - segmented memory was an awful nasty complex way to program and the industry was eager to see the backside of it.
Why would someone be popping up in 2026 saying it was awesome? Weird.
It was awesome in the sense that it was a really, really good solution to the problem they had when the 8086 was being designed:
* we want to stay 16-bit
* we want to make porting extremely easy
* we want to make gradual upgrading of people's programs to >64K easy
* we want to work well with really small memories (so don't force people to use fat pointers all the time)
* we don't want the typical (or max non-redundant) instruction to get too long
* we don't want an MMU
* we don't want complicated bank switching
* we don't want long carry chains for all address generations
* -- but we still want a gigantic address space (for the time it was designed)!
Could have been fixed with an ADC-type instruction that operated on segments.
Imagine if you could have done something like this:
add si, some-delta
adsc es, 0
in order to move a seg:ofs ptr forward by 'some-delta' bytes.
ADSC (add with segment carry) would do:
segreg := segreg + imm + 1000h (if carry)
or:
segreg := segreg + imm (no carry)
Maybe there should also have been an instruction to normalize a seg:ofs ptr (so the new offset was in the 0-15 range).
ADSC could have been adapted for the 286 with ease, as long as a specific layout of the segment descriptor tables was mandated (probably with 10h instead of 1000h in protected mode).
Edited slightly for clarity (ofs => imm).
A normalizing instruction would be harder to do right for the 286 because you don't want to spend too many slots in the descriptor table(s) for a single memory object.
Eh. I don't think "developers broke it". The 8086 gave us something like a flat 20-bit address space and then encoded it as a segment. Once that exists, normalizing far pointers is inevitable.
Not to do a "The Amiga was ahead of its time" thing but as a reminder, 68000 has a flat 24-bit address.
Wow.... I remember writing 8086 assembly on MASM and another assembler I've forgotten the name of, and then also doing inline ASM in Turbo C++
The segment thing and the convoluted different pointer math caused real gymnastics if you ever had data bigger than 64k... such as images.
I always thought of the segments as windows of 64k but moving between those windows, esp with the limited register set, required some real mental gymnastics.
I blame 8086 segmented memory and the rest of its horrid architecture on why no one liked programming in assembly language. There were other elegant RISC machines with flat memory models and large general register sets that were a complete joy to program. Memory paging allowed you to do everything you needed to do that segmented memory provided and left the programmer unbothered for the most part.
Nope. It was bad. It made computers in the 286/386 eras having RAM above 1MB sitting there and doing nothing. It took years to transit to DOS/4G and then finally 32bit OS Windows 95.
> What we needed, in hindsight, was to treat segments as true selectors — opaque handles with no arithmetic meaning. If you can’t assume the next segment is 16 bytes ahead, you’re forced to use segmentation as intended.
Except we couldn't.
If we made each segment isolated from other, we would waste so much memory because memory are allocated in segment.
If we made each segment dynamic, we need something to manage them.
> 8086 Segmented Memory Was a Good Idea.
Yet the article goes about the most ass backward way of explaining 8086 segments and constructs a convoluted mental picture of dividing memory into overlapping chunks.
It's really, really simple: segments on the 8086/88 are 64k sliding windows into an 1M address space. You can move them around at 16 byte granularity.
You need more than 64k for code + data? No problem, the CPU knows when it's fetching an instruction vs when it's fetching data, you can have two sliding windows: code (CS) and data (DS). Split them apart, and it's not much different than a Harvard-style machine and gives you access to more than 64k at a time.
Still need more? No problem, the CPU has a hardware stack with dedicated push/pop/call/ret instructions and a base pointer for stack indexing. It knows when it's accessing the stack, so we can split the data window into regular data (DS) and stack data (SS). Oh, you occasionally want to copy stuff between segments or somewhere else in memory? Well, to encode 3 segments we need 2 bits anyway, let's throw in an extra data window (ES) and some DS-to-ES copy instructions.
It was a clever hack for porting existing code. But it doesn’t scale at all – you’ve just described adding four registers to a register-starved architecture in order to solve the issue for one CPU generation or so.
Segment prefixes were rarely needed and you didn't need to spend any of the precious mod/rm bits on segment registers. The GPR count was limited to 8 partly because of the 3 bits allocated to specifying them and partly because of limited die space. Segment registers only added slightly to the latter cost.
Yeah, but it was probably the right call at the time.
Backward compatibility was a breath of fresh air at a time were code needed constant porting and rewriting. No two machines were alike.
It's one of the reasons the PC became so popular.
still worth it because otherwise you have essentially no software advantage over competing architectures (at the time, mainly Motorola 6800 successors and the PDP-11 architecture)
Plus all this pointer juggling would have been more or less ok (or not ok, but doable) when programming in assembly, but for a compiler it would have been a recipe for disaster...
I'm sure a modern compiler would have no problem with it, but in 1980 optimizer technology wasn't there yet. Modern compilers use more memory that engineers would dare dream of in 1980.
By having no problem I mean we know enough about writing an optimizer to write such a thing. I don't think any compiler does, just that they could.
Compilers in 1980 generated 64k code segments and had no other memory model.
Most people wrote assembler particularly if they wanted to use more then 64k.
Most non assembly programs were interpreted oddly enough and most such interpreters were also mostly 64k.
I recall turbo (Pascal I guess but I was a kid and this was 40 years ago) having options, small for all in one. Then code and data in different segments, but only one each. Then code in one but multiple data, and finally multitude of both. I probably remember the options a bit off but there is enough to state that compilers could handle segments. Though they didn't optimize it well and so the smallest option was fastest
No, that was C (and C++).
Turbo Pascal 3.x always had a single code segment, a single data segment, a single stack segment + a heap. Heap allocations were paragraph aligned (ofs=0). All pointers were far pointers.
Turbo Pascal 4.0 and up had one code segment per module (that they called units). It still had a single data segment and a single stack segment + a heap. Heap allocations were still paragraph aligned and all pointers were still far pointers.
Turbo/Borland Pascal 7.0 also supported 16-bit protected mode. I don't know if heap allocations had ofs=0 there.
None of them had "huge" arrays/pointers where pointers can point to things bigger than 64K -- at the cost of a lot of instructions for pointer arithmetic and array indexing.
Like I said, my memory of 40 years ago isn't good. However it is still enough to prove the point, at least C compilers of the era could handle segments.
I think you are missing the entire point of the article (which I kinda agree with), and just repeating the popular wisdom.
In the era a machine with "object addressing" sounded like a perfectly valid futuristic design (what a Lisp machine strived to be; I guess today you would call it tagged memory of some kind). The 8086 is not that, but the original design would have allowed to evolve it into something like that.
The article's point is that since programmers simply treated it as a sliding window (instead of an opaque object handle), the plan could not be implemented, and the half-assed thing became stuck.
Having seen other Intel RISC designs, I fully agree with the premise.
But with only four segment registers, you couldn't treat it as that - not unless you only had four objects. So treating it as a sliding window was all you actually could do with it.
With 6-7 general purpose registers you could have; since anyway only three of them were usable for addressing you constantly had to load from memory. just use MOV ES instead of MOV BX to load a pointer and you actually got to increase your GPRs by one or two. Nobody did it except for larger memory areas which were allocated using farmalloc() or the INT 21h allocator.
I remember that at some point compiler ads would brag that the new "Microland" compiler could do "segment pointers" where only the segment was stored. I don't remember when it was, but it was fairly late in the DOS era.
In retrospect, they seem so useful and obvious but apparently not. I guess the type of person who thinks near/far/huge is extremely complicated found segment pointers even more complicated.
x86 has 7 general purpose registers.
Using a bare segment register as a pointer was quite common. That’s what the DOS memory allocation call would return.
That's almost like saying that with 2 registers you can only do additions with 2 operands. True, but missing the picture. The number of segments is not limited by the number of segment registers, or even (gasp!) by the number of segment descriptors.
I seem to recall at the time that flat memory was self evidently a better idea. It's not like people were sitting around going "gee I can't think of any better way to do memory addressing that this" until some genius suggests "how about flat?!?!?" Everyone knew flat was best but were stuck with 8086 crap.
I was drooling over the MC68000. I had a pre-release reference manual from 1979 and it was the most awesome chip around. Atari and Commodore and Apple used it after their 6502 systems. Arcade games used it after their 6502 and 6809 days. The only reason x86 became popular was because IBM put it in the PC - not for any technical reasons.
A 68k was roughly double the cost of an 8086, plus the additional cost for the rest of the supporting chips.
The PC was intended to be cheap and was competing with 8 bit machines. Being 16/20 bit made it already high end.
If you wanted 24 or 32 bit, IBM had many other machines to sell you. Or you could just buy a VAX.
Not entirely self-evidently. Position independent code was slower at the time and avoiding having to patching function addresses at load time is a net win.
More importantly, there’s backwards compatibility. By the time the 8086 came out, people had spent serious money on getting binary-only software (WordStar cost hundreds of dollars, for example). “Buy this computer, and you can keep running the software you paid for, but faster” was a good selling point.
I wonder why couldn't Intel simply introduce single 'offset' register for apps ported from 8080, and make all other registers 20-24bit. Why bother with 4 different registers and all that segmentation nightmare?
Lots of benefits to a word size a power of 2.
Very few benefits to a clunky 24 or 20 bit word size; now it costs more and is a bizarre boutique architecture in a world where it needs to compete with 8 bit Z80s and 6502s.
A single one would require a ported app to understand that it worked with bigger registers in order to take advantage of the bigger address space. Some really old computers did work like that, but to allow several apps to coexist in memory, not to give each app more addressable memory.
The segment register solution does both almost for free in most cases. Code gets a segment, data gets a segment, stack gets a segment... and you are free to use all of memory if you bother to use the ES register. In many cases, that could be isolated to a small piece of the program so that was also quite cheap.
As someone who wrote code in assembler, Pascal, and C for those machines: it wasn't at all a nightmare. It was quite easy and simple.
Personally I enjoyed writing assembly with segments. You can have 64k of code, 64k of data and 64k of stack without trying. So long as no individual data structure is larger than 64k there is no essential difficulty working with 16 bit pointers.
When I think back I think it would be fun to have a hierarchical structure where composite data structures (think an array or hash map) are referred to with a pointer that goes into the segment register and you index inside a data structure with a regular pointer.
Lots of 8086 code was written that way. You’d use the segment register on paragraph alignment and basically take advantage of the << 4 + logic.
This code was a nightmare to port to protected mode 80286 so it went away by the Windows 3.1 era.
I went from a 6809-based Color Computer 3 circa 1987 to a 80286. I am kicking myself today because my Uncle Bob told me the job that paid me $1,200 to get a new machine created upwards of $60,000 of value so I could have asked for enough to get a 386!
I was told not to waste any time with 80286 protected mode by all the experts I talked to. I can't complain a lot because that 80286 was crazy fast. Fast enough that when I got another job to develop some software for a teacher at my school I was able to run a Z80 emulator to develop for CP/M and get performance several times better than any real Z80!
I loved programming it too, the 286 had some 16-bit data paths that the 8086 didn't have which I took advantage of in assembly and in copy/move/zero routines that I used with Turbo Pascal which I thought was a much nicer language to C but when I got to college I switched to C because it was portable to the Sun 68k and later SPARC machines we had.
Flat memory was a better idea but it wasn't a cheaper idea, and cheaper beats good. A casual Googling shows a price of $2,880 for a IBM PC in ~1982 dollars versus $8,900 for a Sun Microsystems Sun-1 with a MC68000.
That was just Sun's market segment.
Also from a casual Google, an IBM PC launched in 1985 (picking the XT 5160-078 as an example) was around $4,995 at launch. Compare that to two 68000-based computers also launched in 1985: the Amiga 1000 launched at $1,295 and the Atari 520ST launched at $600.
These computer system prices - Sun, IBM, Commodore, Atari - came from the market segments the manufacturers aimed to sell to, rather than a cost saving enabled by cumbersome memory models.
The cumbersome memory model is just a historical accident; the 8086 designers wanted 8080 backwards compatibility so they could sell to former 8080 users, IBM did not require this. IBM would've picked the 68000 had it been "production ready" at the time, they did not reject flat memory on cost grounds!
Are you sure IBM didn't care about 8080 compatibility? The PC was released in August 1981, a full 4 years before any of the other machines you speak of. That XT 5160-078 you speak of is a cost-reduced model with no hard drive from IBM, allowing dealers to install a compatible hard drive from a different supplier.
By 1985, the PC AT (286) had already been out since August 1984. And the original XT was October of 1983. And the XT itself is literally the same as a PC with more expandability: 8 slots instead of 5, beefier PSU, room for a hard drive.
It's unclear if IBM or for that matter anyone would have been able to start designing a 68000-based machine and bring it to market by the fall of 1981. Sun brought the Sun 1 to market in May 1982, so about 9 months later, and with a much higher price.
And what did the Sun run? UNIX. What did IBM run? Quick ports of the last several years of CP/M software made possible because DOS 1 was specifically designed to implement a CP/M-like API, and the 8086 was specifically designed to allow porting of 8080 assembler code directly to small model 8086 code.
I picked 1985 specifically because of the Amiga/Atari 68000 machines, to show that it's not about price. Had Sun wanted to target the games-machine market, they could've designed for, built and sold a $600 machine based on a 68000 in 1981. Their pricing was because they went for the UNIX workstation market; they also designed and produced their own custom MMU because Motorola's 68851 didn't work correctly for them
Motorola were selling 68000s for $125 each. Steve Jobs talked them down to around $15 each. (Macintosh launch price: $2,495 in 1984) Memory model did not dictate price. Target market and vendor management did.
IBM would have been entirely capable of launching a TMS9900-based PC or a 68000-based PC, had these chips been in full production in 1978. The software and OS for the IBM PC was an afterthought, IBM settled on the CPU first. Had they picked the 68000, they'd have been contracting out for 68000-based OSes.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-inside-story-of-texas-instrume...
> Selection of a 16-bit microprocessor by the IBM team couldn’t have been much of a debate. The Motorola 68K, as it was later known, was undoubtedly the hands-down winner. It had the largest logical address space, which was even more important than the minimum 16-bit internal architecture. It was also easily expandable to a full-fledged 32-bit architecture.
> So why aren’t we all using 68K-based computers today? The answer comes back to being first to market. Intel’s 8088 may have been imperfect but at least it was ready, whereas the Motorola 68K was not. And IBM’s thorough component qualification process required that a manufacturer offer up thousands of “production released” samples of any new part so that IBM could perform life tests and other characterizations. IBM had hundreds of engineers doing quality assurance, but component qualifications take time. In the first half of 1978, Intel already had production-released samples of the 8088. By the end of 1978, Motorola’s 68K was still not quite ready for production release.
So it wasn't about architecture, and it wasn't even about price. It was about time-to-market. The 8088 was in full production and the 68000 was not quite there, at precisely the time IBM wanted to create a PC. The 8088 might've been even quicker to market had they left out the memory segmentation, but Intel had their own business reasons (wanting to sell to existing 8080 customers) for adding it.
-- Everyone knew flat was best but were stuck with 8086 crap.--
This! Thats one of the most interesting things to me: Actually very often in the IT-world, the worst competitor won the race while better solutions were known and available: Microsoft, Intel etc.
Esp. that MS won for decades while making mainly a very bad OS, though they have some good enterprise products.
How would the world look, if Unix/BSD would have won this race?
There was a Microsoft operating system for protected mode 80286 in 1983. It was Xenix 286; it was basically 7th Edition Unix without the branding; and it was touted as the multiuser operating system that MS-DOS would be the gateway to. How would the world look if Microsoft had won the race? (-:
I really wonder if Unix is best we can do. Or is it also worst? So in the end two of the worst options won. It did make sense back in time. But could it have been replaced with something better later?
Linux is only used as a kernel temporarily until GNU is finished.
You mean GNU Hurd, I guess.
The operating system was going to be called GNU.
Don't open this can of worms. (-: There were endless discussions of this in the 1990s. Years's worth.
Scroll down to the 'What Is the Hurd?' section of this announcement post from 1996 and pay particular attention to its first and last sentences. That's the allusion here.
* https://groups.google.com/g/gnu.announce/c/d0N2mLo5dxk/m/bDq...
"Better" is not one dimensional scale
Adding more features to OS is for some use cases a benefit, for other it's a barrier. For one it might be less work to get what you want ,for other it might be more code between you and hardware that just slows it down
Unix-like simplicity is exactly that, for some use cases directness is a benefit, for others it means extra work to do on top to get what you want.
If you just want a house, getting a raw foundation to work with is a lot to build on top, you have to bring the rest of the walls up yourself.
But if you want exactly the house you want, getting entirely different house to start with and changing it is far more work than starting from simple foundation and building up.
Overall unix "here is relatively simple operating system that doesn't force you but needs some things to be built on top to hit your use case" probably IS the best abstraction, despise not being "best" at really anything. There is reason we build houses from concrete and wood, and not carbon fiber and titanium alloys
There have been some very nice OSes in the past (e.g. AmigaOS, BeOS, QNX, Plan 9) that all failed to the Wintel juggernaut. MacOS only just made it out alive.
I wouldn't say Unix itself is the best. It suffered a war between competing implementations pushing their own proprietary components. POSIX is the compromise.
But, ultimately, what is good about it today is not so much "Unix" (the proprietary OS from Bell Labs and its heritage), but specifically Linux and the BSDs. Why? Because they are actually open. They are freedom incarnate. You can add anything you like to them, today, without asking any permission. Not just their kernels, but their userlands too (Linux obviously varies by distro here). There's even a chance you can get your changes adopted upstream (unless it's GNOME), much more than you'd ever get from a proprietary company's OS.
So, while there's always room for improvement on the technical aspects of the OS, the social and political aspects of Linux and the BSDs make them the best we can achieve as a society.
>> two of the worst options won
What do you mean, which are the two? Sure, Windows is crappy by Linus and MacOS? They are both awesome.
There are many crappy design decisions in Unix, Posix, Linux, MacOS, that have been known and worked around for decades (see the Unix Hater's Handbook). One example would be async IO, which has been famously bad in Unix, and Linux alone has tried 2 different generations of solutions - with the newer one, io_uring, being suspiciously similar to Windows' decades old IOCP. Fork/exec is infamous as a needlessly complex process creation API, requiring huge effort in the kernel just to handle the most common case of simply launching a new process. The traditional Unix security paradigm of simple user based file permissions is extremely weak and has required numerous solutions on top to handle realistic security scenarios - e.g. to protect a user's files from being tampered in unexpected ways by a process launched by that user (SELinux, jails, namespaces, etc).
I agree that Windows is crappy, but that doesn't mean that Linux and MacOS aren't also crappy in their own ways (not to mention iOS, Android).
Especially the enshittification over the decades: All the bloat (XBog Game Icon on Win Server - really?), their update politics tangled with higher hardware specs for running the same stuff slower than before.
I do not understand how can one crash their own product/baby that way - and no, this must be Hanlors Razors: They are doing it with (sophisticated) intend, not by accident (or coincidence)
Being technically best has long been known to not be correlated to market success in the way that makes logical sense to technical people who feel confused about this.
A PC with DOS was cheaper than a PC with Xenix, let alone a typical Unix machine. Also much easier to learn to use.
Macs also existed but were expensive. The PC with DOS was both powerful and cheap.
Flat is not necessarily a better idea. In 1978, a 32 bit CPU would be stupidly expensive. The use case for > 64k was to simply have code and data split apart, and also have some MMIO, so basically 192k-256k of addressing needed.
Segmentation meant programs could remain essentially 16 bit with all the benefits to that like smaller code size.
Except than later we returned to a sort-of segmented memory. That is of course paging, our programs allocates pages of memory that are a fixed size (4096 bytes) and are arranged in memory or in swap space how the OS decides.
We just have the illusion of a "flat" memory model, but it's not really flat, the CPU and the operating system does an important job in translating our flat memory model in something that is not flat at all. All that address translation work could have been avoided if we accepted to not have a flat memory model and be aware that our memory is divided in pages.
Basically we are doing in hardware the job of managing a non flat memory space that the programmer, or well, the compiler (or these days you would say the AI agent) could probably to better because it knows how to allocate things to avoid being them on page boundaries, and all of this to give the illusion to the programmer that it's working with a flat memory (except when it does something wrong and gets a segmentation fault, that, as the name suggests, is an hint that at the end the memory is not really flat).
In turn though, the thinking needed to handle non-flat memory is a complexity that most programmers cannot handle - and even those who could probably should spend their brain power on the complex parts of their program not managing memory. Best to leave that hard part to a few experts instead of make everyone understand it.
The above is very similar to the argument that you should use a garbage collected langauge.
Anyone writing an algorithm that needs to be high speed has to start thinking about caches and so forth. So it’s not exactly obsolete.
Back in 1980 most programs were being written in interpreted languages that did all the hard work of memory for you - just like today.
Paging is not part of the CPU architecture. On CPUs of the time the MMU that brought paging to the party often was a completely separate peripheral that the CPU interacted with to gate access to RAM. By contrast segments are an integral part of the CPU instruction set and your code either has to limit itself to 64KB or your application had to be aware of and include logic to manage segments.
As an aside, the memory model is flat, it's just not physically linear when implementing virtual memory addressing.
1992-me hates the author. Coming from 68k assembly, x86 was a nightmare. And together with the ridiculous number of registers, segments made up a huge chunk of that horrible experience.
I knew a bit of 6502 assembly, so I was happy just to have more RAM and more registers.
Looking back, the simplicity of the instruction set seems quaint next to the thousands of instructions we have today.
1992-author (me) is wondering if he'll ever get a girlfriend.
(And I completely agree.)
What? It has 4 times as many general purpose registers as you'd ever need, right? /s
Agree.. 68k assembly was dreamy compared to 80x86..
He's referring to accumulator styles, eg. the 6502.
The segment model seems clever if you assume that you never have an object that is larger than 64kb. And once you have that you need to care about segment overflow, pointer comparisons no longer work, everything now has to carry around segment+offset instead of just offset, and so on. And if you want an example of a >=64kb object - the html alone for that page is one.
A lot of that is just bloat that you wouldn't have had back then. But it could still be handled by an 8086, not by storing the raw HTML in memory at all, but parsing it as it loads. Each DOM node would be its own object with child pointers, with attributes and names all converted into binary numbers of (at most) 32 bits each.
64K of actual text content in a single node could be reached in some documents, but it's not that small, more than a chapter of a typical book.
What was always a problem for segmented memory was graphics, at least if you wanted higher resolution than 320x200 at 256 colors. But you could have a segment pointer to each row of pixels instead of an entire image, as long as it would still fit within 1 MB (16 MB in the 286 protected mode).
True, graphics is a better example of a period-correct >=64k work, but the point is that there are multiple things where you don't expect the data to be that big until it suddenly is.
Why would you ever want a single 64k object? That's like an entire machine's worth of memory!
It's basically a 16-bit machine with PAE; 32-bit with PAE runs into similar issues if you want an object larger than 4GB.
What is the difference between the segmentation model used by Intel and the banking model used by a lot of consoles? I've worked with the code of a couple of NES and GBC games, and while banking could be annoying, I never saw it as a particularly difficult model to follow and use. It did require more planning for the various functionality, but it wasn't even the most complex or difficult thing about developing for consoles.
> and while banking could be annoying, I never saw it as a particularly difficult model to follow and use
Segments aren’t conceptually difficult, either, but definitely could be annoying, and certainly were, if you had to access data structures larger than 64 kB.
As to the differences:
- you had four segment registers that you could ‘point’ anywhere, allowing you to access four 64kB regions of memory without changing them (the equivalent of bank switching) (one always was used for accessing the instruction to run, one for accessing the stack, but you could use those for other purposes, too (Could, not SHould)
- segments can overlap. You could set DS and ES to the same value, for example.
Segments also can be moved at 16-byte granularity. If you wanted, you could have DS address address memory range 0x0000 ≤ x < 0xFFFF and SS address memory range 0x0010 ≤ x < 0x1000F.
Banking is different in that the banks swap in and out. The 8086 segments were all available at the same time once you loaded the segment register, and they overlapped.
Banking was one solution to the 1MB limit; was it extended or expanded mode? I can no longer remember, but one of those gave you a 64kb window somewhere above the 640kb limit in the address space not used by either video RAM or BIOS. That window could then be paged around the rest of memory.
Expanded memory is identical to banking. It wasn’t particularly popular since it’s a pain to program and compilers never got around to automatically generating code for it.
It's pretty much the same thing, except that all the memory mapping logic has moved from 'custom memory mapping hardware' into the CPU.
Banking also appeared on the platform in the form of EMS.
And 32-bit Windows has this kind of banking when 4GB* per app isn't enough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_Windowing_Extensions
*: not actually 4GB, because that makes the kernel code harder to write and tends to lead to bad performance and lots of bugs. They could get 2GB max with the default settings and 3GB with a special configuration.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040812-00/?p=38...
On the NES, most mappers would control which 16Kbyte blocks from the PRG ROM appeared in the upper ($C000) or lower ($8000) block of the NES ROM space. Often the upper block was fixed because of IRQ/RES/NMI vectors. I think later mappers allowed 8K blocks. So you only had those fixed windows at those fixed granularities, not the 16-byte granular sliding window 8086 offered.
I don't know about DMG/GBC/GBA games. Some very interesting stuff happened on those platforms (e.g. Game Boy Camera, and some game that lets you control a sewing machine in Japan?) and I bet a pure sliding window mapper exists.
The PC Engine/Turbografx-16 had platform support for mapping (specific CPU instructions did it) but it was 8 fixed windows in the CPUs 64K address space that pointed to 8K size offsets in the ROM I believe. SNES had a 24-bit address space and DMA to copy things to VRAM so not sure mappers were really on that platform.
Author comes from some weird assumption that software is some annoying byproduct of making hardware, rather than a fact that the hardware is made to run software and making it easier is a goal.
It was just a hack. Hack to delay migration to 32 bit architecture. Effective one, but hack nonetheless
I think it's more like marking a transition in how we thought about software.
When I was learning C, we did things at a reasonably low level. I was learning data structures, and building things like binary trees out of things like structs, and the structs were fixed-sized memory blocks holding pointers to regions of memory which were either more structs or data fields. All reasonable stuff. But we weren't writing for a particular machine. We were writing for the idea of a machine, and part of that idea was that the machine had a flat memory model. This really struck me when I compiled my homework (parse some data into a tree) on the departmental SunOS server, and it worked fine, and then took it home and compiled it with Borland C for DOS on my 386 and it segfaulted on the same data. That was when I learned to hate segmented memory, but looking back, it seems to me that I learned the wrong lesson.
I learned to write software for a lowish-level model of an idealized computer. The generation before me was always writing software for a specific computer, consisting of a specific set of hardware. The software was always the goal, but the nature of the task was defined by the hardware. Things like memory segmentation were facts about the hardware, and the available hardware varied widely at the time in a way modern hardware doesn't, really, except maybe in the embedded space.
It might have worked better if x86 had general-purpose registers where every register could work as a segment. Or maybe just many more segment registers. But with only two data segment registers to play with and quite cubersome (and slow!) loads, most software just chose not to bother.
For its time it was a decent idea. Software was smaller and simpler. But today (and even before 64-bit) software is larger, more complex, we also need memory protection / isolation and more flexible memory allocation / sharing, so paging memory was not introduced for nothing.
> we also need memory protection / isolation
I seem to remember that memory segments came with a permission system (read-only, read/write, execute) in 'protected mode'. Probably only added in the 286 though (I was always more of an m68k guy at that time).
Maybe (I think it's possible in protected mode), but it still has an allocation problem, imagine there are programs A, B, C in the memory. Later, A and C are unloaded, leaving 2 free holes, totaling in 2MB. Now you want to load a 2MB program, but there is no unfragmented 2MB free block. The only solution I see, is to shift some loaded programs, which might be slow and even risky. Paging makes this problem much easier. Also, paging makes permissions and memory sharing more granular.
There is no such thing as a "2MB program".... all you have is a program composed of <=64K segments, which are easy enough to fit into the hole.
If you do need something approaching a 2MB block of memory, you don't need a contiguous range of memory, what you need is a contiguous range of selectors, which is a different (and probably easier) problem to solve.
but without virtual memory you can't move them around and so program that wants to allocate 2MB of 64k segments can't run if there is no 2MB continuos hole
I should preface this by saying I'm taking about x86 segmentation in general. On the 8086 you're right, but the 8086 can't address 2MB of memory to begin with. On the 80286 in protected mode, the situation is different in the way I'm about to describe.
The memory itself doesn't have to be contiguous.
2MB of 64K segments maps to 32 segments. So you need 32 locations in physical memory capable of storing 64K.
The programming model for addressing that block of memory necessarily includes both segment selectors and offsets. The segment selectors are indices into a segment table that contains the base address of each of the 32 segments. As long as the segment selectors themselves can be allocated contiguously in the segment table, you have enough to be able to compute which segment you need for which address in the 2MB range. It's the indirection through the segments table that maps it to physical addresses that do not need to be contiguous.
Raymond Chen talks a bit about how it worked in Windows 3.x here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20171113-00/?p=97...
>> 8086 can't address 2MB of memory
This was just for illustration, not claiming that actual 8086 does this.
>> Raymond Chen talks a bit about how it worked in Windows 3.x here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20171113-00/?p=97...
And this is the problem, it was very painful just to walk through a 200 KB buffer. This required compiler/runtime tricks, different selector increments in real vs protected mode, and special pointer types. Paging later made this kind of thing look like one flat array, a thing segmentation could not: making non-contiguous physical RAM appear contiguous to the program.
> And this is the problem, it was very painful just to walk through a 200 KB buffer. This required compiler/runtime tricks, different selector increments in real vs protected mode, and special pointer types.
Most of that could be (and often was) hidden by the tooling. If you needed to bypass it, you could, but you didn't need to. That's not very different from today... there's a lot of hidden magic that can be bypassed if you need to for whatever reason.
I'd argue that these are useful engineering abstractions that made the best of a less than ideal situation. (The reality of the world being that there are no "ideal" situations... you have to work with what you have at the moment to solve the problem you have. These days, I'd argue that a pointer into a 'flat' memory space is counter productive to the extent it hides issues around cache hierarchy, NUMA, etc. In 1986, we had to worry that a flat memory space looked discontiguous. In 2026, we have to worry the a discontiguous memory space looks flat.
>> In 2026, we have to worry the a discontiguous memory space looks flat.
Well, there are large/huge pages (2MiB/4MiB/1GiB) that reduce this problem.
OK, but we spent a decade having to worry about this garbage, until the tooling finally caught up. You always had to keep it in the back of your mind if you wrote PC software. Even if you just ran PCs, you had to worry about the compatibility between your OS, your "DOS extender", and your programs.
There were literally millions of man-hours wasted on segment registers. A kludge that helped Intel conquer the world, but what a filthy, disgusting architecture, and what a waste of everybody's time and brain power.
> OK, but we spent a decade having to worry about this garbage, until the tooling finally caught up.
This was less about tooling than it was about economics - there was 32-bit hardware available in the personal computer space in 1984, if not before. The issue was cost. In today's currency, a 32-bit capable Mac was $8,000 with 128K. The first 32-bit capable PC was closer to $20,000.
That's a heavy lift in a world where a segmented architecture machine costs a fraction of that amount, runs software you might already have, and works the same way as your co-worker's machine.
> There were literally millions of man-hours wasted on segment registers.
A software developer in 1986 was not forced to deal with segment registers... but they often chose to deal with them to gain access a (much) bigger audience of potential customers for their software.
> A kludge that helped Intel conquer the world, but what a filthy, disgusting architecture, and what a waste of everybody's time and brain power.
The other side of the coin is that (for reasons I state above), segmented architectures got more capable software into more hands more quickly. It arguably did a lot for end users.
Intel wanted to go full 32-bit with capability-like segments right after 8080 with i432. It took way too much time to design, so they released 8086 as a stair-step to 432. It still took too much time, so they released 286. And when i432 was ready it turned out painfully slow anyway and x86 was completely entrenched because of PC platform so they bite the bullet.
I was under the impression that the permissions only kicked in once you were in 32-bit mode on the 386, what Windows called "386 Enhanced" mode.
Any protected mode (if enabled). It was introduced with the 286.
The operating system/DOS extender could choose to let tasks (programs) run with the highest privileges, which would turn off some of the checks but not all of them -- you still needed valid selectors into valid slots in the descriptor tables.
If I'm not mistaken 286's protected mode wasn't really that popular because it breaks real mode DOS programs. Meanwhile, 386's 32-bit protected mode with paging and virtual 8086 mode was a big success.
I had to use it to do image processing on a 256MB image buffer back in the 1980s in assembly language. It was absolutely hideous. Give me a flat 32 bit memory address space any day (e.g. MC68000 around the same time.)
Oops! 256KB, not 256MB. Sorry about that. It was on a dedicated image capture board plugged into the PC.
> I had to use it to do image processing on a 256MB image buffer back in the 1980s in assembly language.... Give me a flat 32 bit memory address space any day (e.g. MC68000 around the same time.)
Huh?
There were no segmented x86 machines capable of addressing 256MB of RAM, aside from the 386 (maybe).
If you had a 386 and the $130K of memory your statement implies, you probably also could afford a Unix (or something else) license to get to that 32-bit address space. (If you weren't doing it all in memory, then you're having to depending on paging stuff out to disk, implying you either have a real OS or a flat memory model isn't enough to save you since you're manually having to page stuff to disk and back anyway.)
That's a super strange scenario you're describing.
Probably talking about swapping it in from some external datastore. These days you would open the file and dump it into a single buffer and rip across it, and not even really stress about it. Even 256 meg of hard drive. That would have been impressively expensive in the 80s.
Back then you had to chunk it out and fiddle with the offsets. Even then you still would have had to manage loading out the next chunk.
If my memory is right 1MB of memory in the early 90s was like 200-300 per meg. Would have to dig up a computer shopper and look.
> Even 256 meg of hard drive. That would have been impressively expensive in the 80s.
I only have a couple reference points around this scale:
My dad's company had a system set up with a searchable index of a bunch of legal testimony. It was a Compaq Deskpro 386 running Unix with an attached 1GB disk. The 1GB disk set up was as big as the machine itself.
A few years later, I worked with a Cyber mainframe equipped with around 30GB of total attached disk storage. The disk array literally filled a room.
256MB disk on an 80's PC would have definitely been quite a bit.
I remember my dad bought a 500MB hard drive for our Apple IIgs. It cost like $500-600 as I recall, not cheap by any means. I remember thinking that no way would we ever fill it up - which, to be fair, we never did. 500MB would fill up instantly now, but programs and data were so much smaller back then that it lasted until the computer eventually stopped being used.
Perhaps they meant KB?
That would make more sense. I was trying to imagine what sort of (custom?) hardware would accommodate that amount of memory back then. That was large storage even for mainframes the time. (The Cray 2 in the mid-1980's had 2GB, which was considered notably large.)
Yes, mental typo. 256KB.
They could have used 16 bit segments with no overlap. It would have a 16 bit offset register + a 16 bit segment selector register with the top 12 bits reserved (always 0). 16 bit software would run as usual in a single segment, while larger programs would use both registers for 20 bit addresses.
286 could then use the next 4 bits from the segment register to allow 16 MB address space and 386 could use all of them for 4GB. And wouldn't it be nice if 386 had 64KB pages (1 segment)?
That wouldn't have worked, the point was to pack data in memory. Even on 64kb computers, MS-DOS 1.x loaded .COM files at the bottom of available memory and allowed using the "familiar" CALL 5 interface even if the program was not loaded at physical address 0x100 (which is part of the interrupt table on x86). MS-DOS 2.x augmented that with TSR (terminate and stay resident) programs that could relocate themselves to use the minimal amount of memory at 16-byte offsets.
The 68000 was a complete break so it opted for relocatable code (which also needed more registers, and in fact the 68k had 16 instead of 8).
I kinda wish they had. 64k windows with no overlap would make segment registers a slightly inconvenient 32-bit address register.
I get why hey didn't. Someone might want to run two processes each with its own segment, but the whole machine might only have 64k in total.
Did anyone else find the AI written style of this offputting?
The original 20 bit vision of the 8086 was when memory was very expensive and they expected typical high end machines to have 128K of memory.
Intel’s assembler was designed so you could have up to 128K of code with a “shared” segment in the middle that either side could reach with near (16 bit only) pointers to call commonly shared routines, and more rarely executed code existed on either end.
In addition data could be its own segment, and/or memory mapped I/O outside of the 128K space.
But memory got so cheap that nobody bothered with this, and the performance gains of writing code that way wasn’t worth the effort. X86 code was compact enough most programs could cram their code into 64k anyway, or 64k per functional unit with calls between them being rare.
The real tragedy is they went for 20 bit instead of 24 bit. 8086 with 16MB of addressable space would have been a very different world and would have made little difference if there use. (Paragraphs would have been 256 bytes, the same size as a page; most data structures would have been fine with that.)
Hi. I wrote it, and I'm a human. (Or at least I think I am.)
I did use an AI for spell-checking, punctuation, generally making it flow, but its all my text.
You think a machine is going to come up with "near pointers, far pointers, wherever-you-are pointers"?
"generally make it flow" is exactly the problem. It's a process of smoothing over any interesting features of the text to replace them with plastic. It's submerging the actual information you wish to convey under a layer of low-entropy noise. The whole signal may still be there, but having to find it under a uniform glossy finish is work for the reader. It's work you didn't need to delegate to the reader.
LLMs generate low-entropy text. That's their entire purpose. But good writing isn't about being as low-entropy as possible. It's about producing peaks and valleys. As a person who's been participating in human-to-human communication your entire life, you probably have a pretty well-developed sense of how to structure the flow of a piece of communication. The small arcs with their ebbs and flows of tension and density provide the reader a rough surface that gives them enough traction to easily move from point to point. Don't let an LLM smooth out all the gaps. It makes it hard for a reader to keep their footing in the text.
> As a person who's been participating in human-to-human communication your entire life, you probably have a pretty well-developed sense of how to structure the flow of a piece of communication.
Not OP, but this is where you're wrong. The vast majority of people, myself included, have difficulty structuring communication for effectiveness to a wide audience. When I manage to pull it off I'm very proud of the work, but I can't just sit down and do it. Review with an LLM helps me find those places where it CLANKS, distracting the reader, taking them out of the flow. This is why every professional writer has an editor; good communication is quite hard.
He's not writing the bible. He's writing a blog post about segment registers. It's fine if there's a sharp edge here or there. You're probably better at communication than you think, and your readers are probably less picky than you're imagining. An occasional sharp edge in your text is not the end of the world.
The original texts of the Bible have lots of “bad grammar” and “poor spelling”, too!
Just sweat more blood.
Thanks for responding. The problem is:
- the “make it flow” made it flow in an AI generated way like short paragraphs that are one short sentence.
- I now have to decide if this is entirely AI generated and thus not worth my time reading or not.
- I would prefer to just interact with you as a real person; your writing doesn’t have to be perfect for what you write to be worth reading.
shrug
I've reviewed what I originally wrote and I prefer the text I published. Sure, I could review it all myself (indeed I used to) but that takes time and it was becoming a barrier to actually publishing stuff. Maybe I'd have got around to finishing it in a few months.
I don't use AI to write for me. I hate people who do that.
Yeah. My challenge is how to distinguish from folks like you versus pure AI generated stuff. (I’ve added you to my mental whitelist, though, so I expect to enjoy posts from you in the future despite the AI tells in the grammar.)
Personally I would prefer if you write it without AI help. Even with your human errors.
> Need more than 64KB? Allocate two blocks.
How is that compatible with an array and a simple implementation of the index operator?
I once developed for PC-GEOS, which wanted all memory in exactly 8K sized blocks. I wrote a set of C macros that presented an array-of-arrays as a single collection by using mod/divide operations on the index.
It isn't.
This was a problem.
You can do the equivalent of the hypothetical ADSC instruction I mentioned in another post using normal instructions. It's just that you need an uncomfortable amount.
Not really. Compilers had huge pointers. They just were slower since they had to do 32 bit math.
Wasm with multiple linear memories is basically segmented memory. Its a great security model.
It made fundamental mistake of starting as 32 bit memory model
God help us all when a webpage needs > 4GB.
Some of mine do. They use WASM64 with threads to run robotics simulations.
That’s an “acceptable” use.
You can use multiple segments (now, you couldnt originally)
It puts some drag on bloat, I quite like it.
The author assumes the way to keep segments going with larger memory would have been to change the amount of overlap, but it would have also been possible to make an 80286 where the segment registers were > 16bits, and everything else is 16 bits like before. Now you have extra segments that are still paragraphs apart and existing software could still function (you'd need new instruction variants to move data into and out of the enlarged portion of the segment registers.. call them ECS, EDS, or whatever). Anyway, just a thought.
No
No, it wasn't
It's the "great idea" that sounds great 5 min in and horrible 10min afterwards
You know, kinda like using null as a string end character
But more importantly it kept the x86 world for too long in that dead end that was 8086 mode programming
"Oh if developers would just..." They won't. They haven't. And they will not ever.
In hindsight maybe a binary level translator from 8080 to 8086 would have worked better (and be simple enough)
The 8086 was a stopgap measure to accommodate the fact the iAPX432 was in the middle of turning into the disaster it did. Given the engineering resources and timelines involved in the 8086, it wasn't a bad compromise approach.
> But more importantly it kept the x86 world for too long in that dead end that was 8086 mode programming > > "Oh if developers would just..." They won't. They haven't. And they will not ever.
8086 real mode programming in the mainstream lasted from 1981 until 1991 or so. The last 35 years have 32-bit (and later 64-bit) flat model addressing with pages for the most part. Seems like a reasonable transition period, really.
> In hindsight maybe a binary level translator from 8080 to 8086 would have worked better (and be simple enough)
Part of the reason they liked the segmented model is that it was possible to set the segments to the same value and then ignore them entirely. That gave a programming model for the 8086 that was sufficiently close to the 8080 that it was possible to use a sort of cross assembler to do something like what you suggest. You could then opt into 8086 specific instructions and segmentation as you needed. (Which took a few years... the first IBM PC's shipped with as little as 16K of RAM.)
Indeed, I say as much at the end.
But what should Intel have done? They needed a CPU that can run 8080 code but with more memory. Also it's the year ~1980 and we're limited to the technology of the age.
A system with 64k sized windows seems unavoidable.
If you extend the size of the address registers, 8080 code will only run in the first 64k, or require some kind of current window register.
An 8080 mode might have worked but that would have been expensive.
> Also it's the year ~1980 and we're limited to the technology of the age.
Tbf the Motorola 68000 which was released around the same time (1979) had a proper linear address space with 32-bit address registers (of which 24 bits were wired up).
Also the 8086 was intended as a cheap and temporary stop gap until Intel's "proper" 32-bit CPU architecture was ready for prime time (the doomed iAPX 432).
New platforms were 68000, old platforms with legacy code just wanted access to more memory, so 8086 segments allowed 64kb chunks. A hack only usable by folks that still wanted to run their old 64kb programs.
It would be a piece of trivia today if motorola were not 6 months late which forced IBM in frustration to change tracks to Intel and MS DOS instead (which worked on 8086). That 6 month drlay created WinTel of today.
The Motorola 68000 was roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than the Intel 8086.
It's not all that different from the memory pages we have today, except that the 'segment' addressing has become a lot more complex under the hood (multi-level page tables) and a lot simpler at the surface (by merging the 'segment-' and page-address bits into a single virtual address).
PS: and segmented memory wasn't all that different from the memory banking used before in 8-bit home computers to address more than 64 KBytes, except that the memory mapping hardware was implemented outside the CPU.
> It's not all that different from the memory pages we have today
An MMU gives you a flat addressing model. There is no comparison. 8086 segments are rigidly locked to a 64KB window that goes forward in memory 16 bytes for every segment (so segmented address 1234:5678 is linear address $12340 + $5678 = $179B8)
It didn't do this to offer a useful feature like an MMU. It did this to allow code that doesn't know segment registers exist to think they're still running on an 8-bit Z80. What a waste of potential. The 68000 didn't pretend to be a 6502.
The 80286 introduced protected mode with "segment descriptors", but this is well after MMUs existed on other CPUs, it didn't invent virtual memory. Only the 80386 offered a 32-bit flat memory model.
If you want to see something to make you weep, look at the MS-DOS version of unzip. It has to do all kinds of crazy, just to allocate 64KB of RAM and get all 64KB, not 8 bytes less. And it's still locked into a memory access model that will not let it ever address more than 64KB of any one object. It's why MS-DOS was viewed as a toy OS for a toy computer.
That's a limitation of the Turbo C library, as the comment says. DOS memory allocation functions take the size in 16-byte "paragraphs", and return a segment, with the allocated memory starting at offset zero in that segment.
> In hindsight maybe a binary level translator from 8080 to 8086 would have worked better (and be simple enough)
Many programs written in assembly language used self modifying code back then. It saved RAM and improved performance. All programs that used such trickery would have broken by a binary translator.
Don't know why you're being voted down - you're correct - segmented memory was an awful nasty complex way to program and the industry was eager to see the backside of it.
Why would someone be popping up in 2026 saying it was awesome? Weird.
It was awesome in the sense that it was a really, really good solution to the problem they had when the 8086 was being designed:
I quite enjoyed using the memory segments - I thought they were quite intuitive and helped in reasoning about the machine.
Google's native client (NaCl) even used it on 32-bit x86...
Segmented memory (on hardware that supported segment permissions) was used to good effect in Multics as well.
x86 32 bit protected mode segments were a very different beast.
Could have been fixed with an ADC-type instruction that operated on segments.
Imagine if you could have done something like this:
in order to move a seg:ofs ptr forward by 'some-delta' bytes.ADSC (add with segment carry) would do:
or: Maybe there should also have been an instruction to normalize a seg:ofs ptr (so the new offset was in the 0-15 range).ADSC could have been adapted for the 286 with ease, as long as a specific layout of the segment descriptor tables was mandated (probably with 10h instead of 1000h in protected mode).
Edited slightly for clarity (ofs => imm). A normalizing instruction would be harder to do right for the 286 because you don't want to spend too many slots in the descriptor table(s) for a single memory object.
btw, we only really need ADSC for the ES register.
Eh. I don't think "developers broke it". The 8086 gave us something like a flat 20-bit address space and then encoded it as a segment. Once that exists, normalizing far pointers is inevitable.
Not to do a "The Amiga was ahead of its time" thing but as a reminder, 68000 has a flat 24-bit address.
Wow.... I remember writing 8086 assembly on MASM and another assembler I've forgotten the name of, and then also doing inline ASM in Turbo C++
The segment thing and the convoluted different pointer math caused real gymnastics if you ever had data bigger than 64k... such as images.
I always thought of the segments as windows of 64k but moving between those windows, esp with the limited register set, required some real mental gymnastics.
Contemporary hardware rarely had images over 64k and memory bandwidth at the time made them a laughable concept.
I blame 8086 segmented memory and the rest of its horrid architecture on why no one liked programming in assembly language. There were other elegant RISC machines with flat memory models and large general register sets that were a complete joy to program. Memory paging allowed you to do everything you needed to do that segmented memory provided and left the programmer unbothered for the most part.
Totally agree.
Nope. It was bad. It made computers in the 286/386 eras having RAM above 1MB sitting there and doing nothing. It took years to transit to DOS/4G and then finally 32bit OS Windows 95.
Ah, memories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
> What we needed, in hindsight, was to treat segments as true selectors — opaque handles with no arithmetic meaning. If you can’t assume the next segment is 16 bytes ahead, you’re forced to use segmentation as intended.
Except we couldn't. If we made each segment isolated from other, we would waste so much memory because memory are allocated in segment.
If we made each segment dynamic, we need something to manage them.
This "hindsight" is just a MMU in disguise.