Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murdu!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!u3364521 From: U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Files larger than available memory. Message-ID: <1089@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> Date: 29 Sep 90 17:55:33 GMT References: <924@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> <1990Sep23.174736.16118@lavaca.uh.edu> <83986@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <14646@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: I.A.E.S.R., Melbourne University Lines: 53 G'day, MM> In article , mwm@raven.pa.dec.com MM> (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: MM> I've just started poking at this, because one of the changes to mg3 MM> before the release is going to be ditching the linked list of lines in MM> favor of a buffer gap editor. Making the editor page to disk after MM> this is done would be simple, but it's not clear even that's worth the MM> trouble. I guess that is really a "marketing" question and not one of technical degree (as you mention). This could be put to the mg3 user population ... MM> [...your buffer gap editor ideas. Go for it Mike! :-)...] MM> The obvious "tmp" place is ram, which doesn't buy anything. Likewise, MM> paging to floppy doesn't buy much. I tend to agree with Dave - with a MM> 1 meg nominal minimum machine, and those with hard disks probably MM> having more, there's not much reason to want to page to disk, and the MM> space/time spent on that code can probably be put to better use. I prompted the original note stream but I do admit it might be painful to use mem paging on a minimal system. However at this point in time the only choice is to buy more RAM and while I agree that is preferable I _believe_ that many users would like a choice. MM> Anyone have any comments? I'm in a marketing frame of mind re this problem (and so it is probably not a c.s.a.t type of discussion now...). I believe that I read that some (all) Mac s/ware for non MMU capable Macs can page memory (I don't know first hand, sorry) and similarly for Windows 3.0. I am not one of those "they have, we should have it" cry babies however. I just think it makes sense. My thoughts are that if all s/w writers could choose to support a mem. paging (Dave Haynie suggests a swapping library) system that nonMMU (hence virt. mem Amiga OS support..one day) Amiga owners would have more choice in s/w and RAM configurations. I appreciate your point re: whether the space/time spent on the code would be worth it to you. I say that for you go for the most worthwhile choices. However as I've hoped for a while (and Dave suggested in an earlier post) the effort here should probably be done once only. If there were a (hypothetical) swapping.library available would you put in hooks to use it? MM>