please pardon my out-of topic, but speaking of wikipedia it seems to have some false info about dos unreal mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_mode

i had pointed it and explained it on the "discussion" tab :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unreal_mode

maybe someone could back me up or something...
so long for correctness in wikipedia (on little-known knowledge...)  :sad:


Posted on 2007-02-15 15:18:06 by HeLLoWorld

please pardon my out-of topic, but speaking of wikipedia it seems to have some false info about dos unreal mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_mode

i had pointed it and explained it on the "discussion" tab :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unreal_mode

maybe someone could back me up or something...
so long for correctness in wikipedia (on little-known knowledge...)  :sad:



Considering how much OS Dev I have done... and how many "himem" DOS programs I have ran that had no issue with interrupts... I would have to agree... and I have "fixed" the misinformation :lol:
Posted on 2007-02-15 15:55:05 by SpooK
still it's not completely true. You can also have 32bit code.

I think naming convention used by tomasz grysztar is nice:

flat real mode = 16bit code, 4GB selector limits, all segments start at 0
unreal mode = flat real mode with 32bit code.

FASM uses 32bit code in real mode, as example. This could be mentioned.
Posted on 2007-02-16 09:42:12 by vid
imho those are the same thing, vid - you're going to have those 66/67 prefixes for the "32bit code" in real mode. And for what you call "flat real mode", you'll need at least some "32bit" code to actually access memory.

Posted on 2007-02-18 16:16:32 by f0dder
f0dder :nope, what tomasz calls "unreal mode" is real mode with native 32bit code. Without prefixes.

Segments are all 32bit, different IDT for your 32bit code that can call 16bit interrupts etc. etc.

Unfortunatelly, there is still limitation to 1MB of code, because on interrupt only IP gets pushed
Posted on 2007-02-18 19:54:10 by vid
Hmm, interesting... dunno how useful it is these days ("dos is dead" etc.), but it does sound easier than setting up a fullblown extender. Compatible with emm386? :]
Posted on 2007-02-19 01:53:28 by f0dder
it is not very usable now, but was pretty much in DOS times. It allowed using 32bit code in DOS without extender. Of course, if you have extender, you can use it to run with 32 bit code.

Anyway, it should be mentioned on wikipedia
Posted on 2007-02-19 08:35:52 by vid

it is not very usable now, but was pretty much in DOS times. It allowed using 32bit code in DOS without extender. Of course, if you have extender, you can use it to run with 32 bit code.

Anyway, it should be mentioned on wikipedia

I agree with his point here. Wikipedia should be a general purpose 'pedia'. Information is there for the hell of it. There should be a place for old standards as well. Just because information is outdated doesnt mean it never existed. When such controversy arises there its common to see other articles  with timelines.

Not mentioning it however would be a crime against all wikipedia motto.
Posted on 2007-02-19 18:08:17 by codename
codename: so, you think 16 bit code shouldn't be mentioned on wikipedia? or 8086 processors?

Of course, this should be mentioned as a part of history, not as technology to use.
Posted on 2007-02-19 20:05:21 by vid

codename: so, you think 16 bit code shouldn't be mentioned on wikipedia? or 8086 processors?

Of course, this should be mentioned as a part of history, not as technology to use.

Sorry if I was not clear enough. I mean just what you are saying. They should either mention it on wikipedia. Either by making a full different article in another page and mentioning it at unreal mode with a link to this or putting everything right to the unreal mode page.
Posted on 2007-02-20 08:46:01 by codename
eeggh, sorry

i have completely misread your post
Posted on 2007-02-20 14:09:16 by vid