Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Dec 2012 21:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 545113
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-16
Are you sure? The 386sx only supported 16MB RAM (24 bit address bus). "
It's theoretically possible. Back then some computers used "expanded memory", where you might have a pool of RAM (e.g. 256 blocks of 64 KiB) that the CPU can't access and a small number of those block/s could be switched into the CPU's address space (e.g. so that the CPU could access any 2 of the 64 KiB blocks at a time).
For example; you could have "almost 16 MiB" of normal RAM that uses "almost 16 MiB" of the CPU's address space; plus another 16 MiB of "expanded RAM" that only uses 128 KiB of the CPU's address space.
- Brendan