>Say happy birthday /g/
>>109013079are modern intel cpus even capable of running 16-bit code anymorei guess its possible if you boot a 32-bit windows 10 and then use v86 mode with some dos app
>>109013079is this a reference to when they made human centipede movie or something?
>>109013094Yes, like this they can, but Intel want to remove it and 32bit mode with something called 64bit modes S (simplified) or x64-86s
>>109013094>>109013167You can do it on linux but it's locked by default because of unfixable flaw in 16bit instruction processing.That said, picrel is well worth it.
>>109013079>>109013094>>10901309786descends the starthe challenger is killedshe has a meltdown and kneels a c-her nobleeveryone was a-noid by his arrival, the man of steeloh well, shaliday
>>109013171atomic bomberman is 32-bit exe though.
>>109013171>unfixable flawcan't make a patch and inject into the rom/code?
>>109013097can you provide this picture in a higher resolution, i need it for my 86 schizo folder.
Happy birthday x86! The best CPU architecture ever conceived. Arm and PPC stans can go fuck themselves.
>>109013094Technically yes. In practice no, since the fuck heads who designed amd64 decided that long mode would not support v86. And why would you be running a 32bit OS in 2026. Seriously, the people who designed amd64 were such retards. Bad decision after bad decision.
>>109014467>And why would you be running a 32bit OS in 2026if you want to run DOS apps using v86 mode is probably the only reasonor if you have 4gb or less ram (since 32bit OS and apps use less memory)
>>109013094they read fat16 data just fine, not sure there still is 16-bit compability mode
>>109014369>The best CPU architecture ever conceived.Wrong.
>>109013079Peak.https://youtube.com/watch?v=7llLkGvr3u4
>>109014635I love the 68k. The architecture is so fucking coolI love x86 too. The goats
>>109013079i hate this putrid shitpile architecture so much, it's unreal
>>109014369uhm
>>109014369OI VEY BROTHER, I LOVE Israeli COCK TOO, LONG LIVE ISRAEL BROTHER AARON.
>>109014635Man of taste.6502 was also good, and 65000 represents the future we were denied.>>109016471A nearly adequate replacement for 8051, perhaps.
>>109017771My top 3.1. 68K2. 65023. x86
>>109017771>A nearly adequate replacement for 8051, perhaps.
>>109013079Why wasn't it replaced by something modern?
>>109016471risc-v is a babbies first toy ISA that somebody mistook as being serious.
>>109018320They said the same thing about ARM 30 years ago
I don't miss segmented memory modes.
>>109018344risc-v was specifically invented to be a simple ISA for students to implement their first toy cpu.
>>109018320>>109018357things evolve
>>109013079Haha with the rhodedendon honey I'm on it looks like its little legs are moving. Go little guy go haha!
>>109018357>>109018320by the fucking way: risc-v is LITERALLY revolutionizing embedded systems right now.arm is still better when it comes to power saving, but the rest is obviously solved and risc-v is just much much cheaper.It is inevitable that it'll take over sooner or later. Now if it will reach desktops, I don't know, but people were sceptical about ARM for a long time too.But it'll reach servers for sure
>>109018357you seem not to have any idea how much like dec alpha pizzabox cost as new
>>109013079>8086They were terrible.>>109014635The CHAD of all CPU architectures>>109017832It was. Multiple times. PC compatibles are the only things still using x86 shit in 2026. Everyone else moved onto RISC long ago.
>>109021104> They were terrible.8086 is one of the best 16bit cpus. Its not fair to compare it to 68000 since that is a 32bit architecture.> moved onto RISC long agoMost "RISC" cpus either die or eventually become CISC, there is nothing even remotely reduced about a modern ARM cpu. Heck, modern ARM now has some read-modify-write instructions.
What could these be used for today? Surely some home task
>>109021132>8086 is one of the best 16bit cpusquite simply wasn't. It was slow compared to 68000. 8086 also had to deal with segmented memory, that costs precious cpu cycles every time you want to access another page. 68000 had flat memory model and an assembly language that was beautiful to use, not complete cancer like 8086. the only reason PC ended up with 8080/8086/etc.etc. is because 68000 wasn't ready to be produced in quantities that IBM wanted, not because the intel chips were better or the "best".
>>109021187Can't be used for much. They need a bunch of support chips to handle memory dma, timers, interrupts.. it's a long list of shit to make the 8086 usable beyond loading something in the first 64kb page to blink lights or something. People don't have time for that shit in current so they use CPUs that most of that shit built-in
>>109021260IBM wanted 8 bit bus to cut costs and 68008 wasn't introduced until 1982.
MIPS just watching from the sidelines being the best.
>>10902126068000 is 32bit. 8086 is pretty much the best actual 16bit cpu.Also, segmentation is actually extremely elegant, far superior to pretty much every other way at giving a 16bit cpu support for more than 64kb of memory.
>>109013079who are you quoting? is it /g/'s birthday?8086 is dead you fucking idiot>>109021187landfill quota
>>109014837>>109013079This one:https://youtube.com/watch?v=IdnBTJiUVDQ&ra=m
>>109013079happy birthday /g/
>>109022571segmentation could be elegant if segments didn't overlap. but that would make it 32-bit like 68k, wouldn't it?
>>109024124Overlapping is one of the main strengths of segments. They would be much less useful if they did not overlap. Also, 32bit registers are very much not the same as using segments. An 8086 program mostly just uses 16bit addresses, this is much more efficient than having to use 32bit addresses all the time. Consider that the first 8086 machines only had like 64-128k of ram. In this era 8086 was a very good design. It allowed you to address more than 64k but not that much more.
>>109014369unironically what's good about x86 besides being the standard
>>109024658as I see overlapping was only necessary to load multiple 64kb or smaller programs, unmodified, without wasting memory on gaps.which is silly because those systems didn't end up being used for multitasking.
>>109024755Technically: nothingFinancially: it was there when IBM was looking for a safe entry into micriocomputing.x86 was always bad, it just succeeded in getting even worse, and was saved by multiple rewrites of the microarchitecture and extrenmely optimised fab lines.
