Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bbn!oliveb!tymix!cirrusl!sun505!dhesi From: dhesi@sun505.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: dosread.c again Message-ID: <1006@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 27 Oct 89 05:02:35 GMT References: <695.254152F7@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <3768@ast.cs.vu.nl> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Reply-To: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 24 In article <3768@ast.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) 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. My eyes :-) perked up at this. I doubt that virtual memory (defined in some reasonable way) will ever be obsolete. So long as people use disk drives, they will have sets of data that are bigger than their main memory will hold. They will make their programs read in parts of those data, process them, and write them back. They will be happier if the operating system does that for them transparently. Bingo! Virtual memory. Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi Use above addresses--email sent here via Sun.com will probably bounce.