Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!convex!ewright
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: New replacement for INITs
Message-ID: <ewright.674165784@convex.convex.com>
Keywords: INIT extensions System 7
Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
References: <2729@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <1991May12.032859.8612@swbatl.sbc.com> <2733@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <1991May12.193300.11349@swbatl.sbc.com>
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 20:16:24 GMT
Lines: 13

In <1991May12.193300.11349@swbatl.sbc.com> george@swbatl.sbc.com (George Nincehelser 5-6544) writes:

>Hmmm...you're right....you gave a bad example.  What makes you think
>applications won't step on each other's toes?  Remember, we don't have
>protected memory.

Since memory protection is discussed so frequently in the comp.sys.mac
news groups, I thought this would be of interest. Inside Macintosh,
Vol VI states on page 3-6 that "Some Macintosh computers use memory
protection and may prevent code from writing to addresses within
code segments."  I can't find any further details about this in
IM VI, so make of it what you will.