Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!cheddar.cc.ubc.ca!panon
From: panon@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (Paul-Andre Panon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Memory protection for all amiga's
Message-ID: <7299@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: 27 Mar 90 05:50:52 GMT
References: <227.25ff6050@waikato.ac.nz> <532@bilver.UUCP> <7250@ubc-cs.UUCP> <5334@scolex.sco.COM>
Sender: news@cs.ubc.ca
Reply-To: panon@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (Paul-Andre Panon)
Distribution: na
Organization: UBC Computing Centre, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 24

In article <5334@scolex.sco.COM> brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) writes:
>
>In article <7250@ubc-cs.UUCP> panon@cheddar.cc.ubc.ca (Paul-Andre Panon) writes:
>>The problem is when you try to implement memory protection
>>that you can break things. For obvious reasons, you could only run VM on
>>FAST RAM, not CHIP (blitter wants this address. Just a second I'll page it in.
>>oops, there goes your screen, Sorry.)
>
>Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but memory management does not
>require virtual memory.  On the amiga, memory management without
>virtual memory would be quite nice.  (Of course VM would be nice too :-)
Quite true, but I don't see where I said that. I said you break things
with memory protection (having initially talked about message passing, which
is where most programs would break - but you edited that out) and then
I talked about not using VM for CHIP RAM. I know the difference but, considering
I didn't seperate things out, I can see how there could be confusion.
>
>Wasn't this discussed to death a few months ago?
probably

--
    Paul-Andre_Panon@cheddar.staff.ucs.ubc.ca    or    USERPAP1@UBCMTSG 
or  Paul-Andre_Panon@undergrad.cs.ubc.ca         or    USERPAP1@mtsg.ubc.ca
Looking for a .signature? "We've already got one. It is ver-ry ni-sce!"