Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!husc6!m2c!umvlsi!dime!roskill From: roskill@cs.umass.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: New MS Windows (?) Message-ID: <15006@dime.cs.umass.edu> Date: 31 May 90 22:15:24 GMT Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu Organization: COINS, UMass, Amherst Lines: 35 In article <1990May31.072828.2220@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >This is a good point--no machine runs vaporware. It'll be real interesting >to see what is ported to Windows. Maybe Windows will provide enough of a mass- >market to help finance more Windows *and* Mac apps... I know a lot of mac companies are very interested in porting to Windows 3.0 because of the tremendous installed base. I understand that Microsoft already has Word (almost identical to the mac) up and running. >does this with Win 2.xx. I guess I'm unclear whether or not System 6 or 7 >will support memory protection. I understood they didn't, but have been lead to >believe otherwise. By protection, I mean that if a program tries to address >a chunk of memory it doesn't own, it traps and gets kicked out. This seems to >be a vital element to multitasking, since it protects applications from each >others' bugs. If System 6/7 do have this, is a PMMU needed? If I'm thinking of what you're thinking of...then no PMMU is needed. But I hardly qualify as a mac memory expert. > >Aaron Wallace > >P.S. It must be nice to talk about System 7 w/o circumlocution. Before > Win 3.0 was released, everyone was bound by nondisclosure mumbo- > jumbo into talking about "possible future upgrades" of Windows! Yeah...it is nice. Damian |----------------------------------------------------------------| |"Party For Your Right To Fight" | "Welcome to the Terrordome!"| | Damian Roskill | | | Roskill@cs.umass.edu | | |----------------------------------------------------------------|