Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm
From: mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM used a 68000
Message-ID: <431@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 09:30:49 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.431
Posted: Mon Dec  2 09:30:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 08:04:04 EST
References: <212@fas.ri.cmu.edu> <142@heurikon.UUCP> <1916@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Lab
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.micro:12925 net.arch:2208

In article <1916@watdcsu.UUCP> broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) writes:
>I know nothing of the "68451", except that (so far as I know) almost no one
>is using it.
Since you claim to know nothing about the critter, how do you know anything
about it's user base???  Heurikon, and other manufacturers make some very
nice machines based on the chip. True, the 68851 is an order of magnitude better
>
>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 called a friend at the big "I" who said that the segmented scheme was an 
architectural extension to the 8080, and not memory management, period.  What
do you define as memory management????