Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!wilkins
From: wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: New Macintosh Strategy
Keywords: Macintosh
Message-ID: <9451@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 31 Oct 90 06:50:08 GMT
References: <306@cti1.UUCP> <1990Oct29.195413.7784@phri.nyu.edu> <1054@mdavcr.UUCP> <5485@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Distribution: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 28

In article <5485@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>It money depends on it, you
>cannot afford to have one process go wild and destroy the memory
>allocated to other processes.


  Frankly, I think this argument has very little merit, considering the
difficulty of implementing protected memory on the Mac.

  Protected memory will not let you do anything you can't now.  VM will.
Furthermore, I've never seen a system crash which wasn't caused by an INIT
conflict or running out-of-date software, except in my programming work.

  But even if things do crash, if money depends on it you're stupid not to
have extensive backups and so on even if protected memory is present.
People got along without protected memory for years and will probably
continue to do so.

  Not that protected memory is a bad idea -- it's a great one, and Apple is
working on it, or at least they're aware of user demands for it.  But it's
not the cure-all you make it out to be.

-- Mark Wilkins
-- 
*******     "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!"    **********
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  Mark R. Wilkins   wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu   {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins  *
******  MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink  ******   MWilkins on America Online   ******