Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Memory Protection! Message-ID: Date: 16 Aug 90 20:47:20 GMT References: <13756@cbmvax.commodore.com> <900816.150215.CDT.C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU's message of 16 Aug 90 20:02:15 GMT Now, what happens when an unprotected program tries to step on a protected. program? I'd call that a task held. It's not very nice but at least it stops the errant program from doing real damage. No, it stops the errant program from doing any _more_ real damage. You don't know what it's managed to trash before it tried to touch something it wasn't supposed to. At this point, a reboot is just as advisable as it is without the protection. Not that a dual-universe system, with some programs running protected and others running unprotected, is worthless. It doesn't stop the programs in the unprotected half of the world from taking out your system, but it'll stop programs running in protected mode from doing so. That provides a great incentive to purchase programs written that way, which will provide an incentive to develop programs that work in a protected environment.