Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!fadden
From: fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Multitasking on a II
Message-ID: <9739@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 13 Dec 90 22:31:23 GMT
References: <&RF^T6-@rpi.edu> <10063@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <7TF^W^=@rpi.edu> <14730@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 35

In article <14730@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <7TF^W^=@rpi.edu> floyd@pawl.rpi.edu (Patrick J Wetmore) writes:
>>>	I believe that the original IBM PC can run Xenix...
>>Yah, you can run it fine, until a poitner gets screwed and zaps something
>>in another processes memory. Then you get crashes. If it worked just fine,
>>we wouldn't have MMUs, would we?

Maybe you should go over to Xerox PARC and tell them that they've got it
all wrong...  Would save them some money, I'm sure.  Cedar, anyone?

>                                                                   My
>normal working environment is a fully-protected UNIX system that would
>abort tasks that attempt to use pointers out of their own address
>space, and I almost never see a task aborted for that reason.

"Segmentation fault"...?  I see it all the time...  About the ONLY reason
a program crashes.

>Without an MMU, the main difference in operation is that relocation
>must be provided as task images are loaded into memory for execution

Unless you want to do something weird like 8088 segmentation registers...
but that's not really a very good solution (not at all).

>I second the motion for the fellow who suggested that if you don't
>like your (free) IIGS you quit whining about it here.  Particularly
>since you don't know what you're talking about.

Want to do preemptive multitasking on a //gs?  I'll send you a (pre-alpha)
copy of LWP-GS...

-- 
fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden)
..!ucbvax!cory!fadden
fadden@hermes.berkeley.edu (when cory throws up)