Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!uunet!ccicpg!cci632!tvf
From: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Minix vs. Unix/Xenix (was Re: dosread.c)
Message-ID: <31364@cci632.UUCP>
Date: 24 Oct 89 15:01:51 GMT
References: <568@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: tvf@ccird7.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY
Lines: 20

In article <568@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>>In article <695.254152F7@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>> 2. Virtual memory.  I tend to regard this as obsolete.  With Bruce Evans'
>>    protected mode kernel and a 2M 386 you can have up to 2M of programs
>>    running at once.  That has to be enough for a personal computer.
>>    Thus I see virtual memory as something with a lifespan limited to
>>    the older machines, which will probably be gone in a couple of years.
>The closer Minix comes to real Unix or even Xenix, the more demand for virtual
>memory.

While this may not be pertinent to minix, but on some machines researchers
are using virtual memory techniques where they have access to more physical
memory than their processor can legally address (the BBN Butterfly, for
example).  Will virtual memory be gone in a couple of years?  No.  Maybe
when processors handle larger word sizes, but that's still a few years off.

Thomas V. Frauenhofer	...!rutgers!rochester!cci632!ccird7!tvf
*or* ...!rochester!kodak!swamps!frau!tvf *or* ...!attctc!swamps!frau!tvf
"The Earth? I'm going to blow it up.  It obstructs my view of Venus" - Martin