Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!kodak!atexnet!cvbnet!feds19!jshekhel
From: jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?))
Keywords: long
Message-ID: <701@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Date: 27 Jul 90 16:51:36 GMT
References: <1990Jul19.135115.2032@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <3160@rwthinf.UUCP>
Sender: postnews@cvbnetPrime.COM
Reply-To: jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel )
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA
Lines: 31

In article <3160@rwthinf.UUCP> windy@beauty.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Andrew John Stuart Miller) writes:
>
>Some of us don't take the attitude "Why make life easy when IBM can make it
>almost imposible for you?" I would rather have an Atari st TT or amiga than the
>PC compataible I have to suffer at home at the moment (though now with minix).
>

I run UNIX on my 386SX-based PC, and I have yet to deal with IBM.  Setting
everything up has been extremely easy.  I really wish I knew what you are
talking about, how you've had to "suffer", and how IBM has made life
"almost impossible" for you.  I really wish I knew, so that I could
understand.

>
>Intel tried to do too much before they new for certain what was usefull and
>what was not, hence brain dammage such as 64k segments, lack of interrupt requests etc.
>The 68000 series, amongst other processor series, does not suffer from such handicaps, 
>as Motorola thought before burning a design into silicon.
>

Oh yeah.  And I suppose Motorola thought about virtual memory management
and UNIX when they burned the original 68000 into silicon?  Why is it, then,
that the 286 can run a real OS with virtual memory and protected address
spaces for each process (UNIX System V), and the 68000 can't?  Am I missing
something here?

>
>Andrew Miller
>

-- Jerry Shekhel