I have to respect his choice to focus on the 8086 and the pentium, I would think he considers the 80286 a brain dead footnote, interesting as to what when wrong and what went terribly wrong.
I used to teach binary math to kids, and at a county fair I was upstaged by an 11 year old girl who demonstrated both multiplication by powers of two and division of powers of two.
The 286 could process twice as many instructions per clock as an 8086. According to Wikipedia, an uplift similar to the 80486 and the Pentium over their predecessors.
So that is wikipedias "opinion" which any one could edit. I should edit that to reflect where the performance came from. Always check sources. ( The reference comes from intel386.
com)
The cited website went offline this morning, and it does not discuss the execution rate of the 286, NOR does it discuss the reserved bytes in the GDT, and LDTs.
" For those descriptors that are common to both the 80286 and the 80386, the presence of zeros in the final word causes the 80386 to interpret these descriptors exactly as 80286 does; for example: "
This is patently and documented as untrue. The final word is reserved for use as a 365 GDT, and breaks 286 code, specifically Xenix 286, on a 386.
I used to teach binary math to kids, and at a county fair I was upstaged by an 11 year old girl who demonstrated both multiplication by powers of two and division of powers of two.
"What does your father do for a living?'
"He is the director of the laser fusion project!"
"Oh."