Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: mikey@clutx.clarkson.edu (Mike deMare,119 Congdon,,2683918)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1990May30.215212.6245@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 30 May 90 21:52:12 GMT
References: <20534@nigel.udel.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Reply-To: mikey@clutx.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Lines: 21

From article <20534@nigel.udel.EDU>, by uucp@hgatenl.hobby.nl (0000-uucp(0000)):
>>From root Tue, 29 May 90 09:19:44 remote from minixug
>>From article <20321@nigel.udel.EDU>, by V2057A%TEMPLEVM.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu (Juan Jose Noyles):
>> I'm in no position to say what will or won't happen, but I'd like to remind
>> you folks that Unix v7, upon which Minix is based, was capable of running quite
>> well on a 64K machine (PDP 11/34).  Perhaps someone can find out from DEC

v7 on an 11/34?  The 11/34 I used to work on was running v6 because it
did not have a large enough address space for v7 (or so they said).  Also
the 11/34 WAS NOT a 64K machine!  It had a seventeen bit address bus
(thanx to the MMU) addressing 16-bit words yielding 256KB.  That is four
times the 64K figure being bounced around.  If v7 would not run on the
11/34 with 256KB core, paging (which impies swapping) etc, how can it
run on an 8-bit machine with no MMU and a 64KB address spce (and less
register => more instructions)?

I think a UNIX implementation for a machine that small would have
to be written in Assembler by someone who is good at tight code.

Mike