Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!broehl
From: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM used a 68000
Message-ID: <1916@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Nov-85 08:51:43 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1916
Posted: Wed Nov 27 08:51:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 03:32:45 EST
References: <212@fas.ri.cmu.edu> <142@heurikon.UUCP>
Reply-To: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.micro:12865 net.arch:2179

>     1) Our company has been very successfully using the "abortive" 68451
>	in our UNIX based products for two and one half years. It does, and
>	always has, worked exactly the way the documentation says it should.

I know nothing of the "68451", except that (so far as I know) almost no one
is using it.  The fact that it works "exactly the way the documentation says
it should" ought not to be remarkable; why is it? 

>     2) The 8088 has *no* MMU at all. It has a segmentation scheme that
>	amounts to little more than a simple memory map.

This is untrue.  The segmentation scheme (which is, granted, a pain in the
butt for a programmer working in assembler (which almost no one does)) provides
*some* of the functionality of an MMU; a bare 68000 does not.  I think the
original poster (to whom you were replying) may have been exaggerating a bit
by calling it an MMU, but you've certainly exaggerated in the other direction.

>     3) If you don't know what you are talking about, don't get involved in
>	technical discussions.

With all due respect, the same can be said of you.  In any case, this kind of
"observation" is petty and childish.

>						Dave Scidmore