Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site wlbr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!voder!wlbr!steve
From: steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Re: Memory Management w/o MMU"
Message-ID: <391@wlbr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 20:47:32 EST
Article-I.D.: wlbr.391
Posted: Mon Dec  2 20:47:32 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 05:49:40 EST
References: <371@sdcc13.UUCP> <39700009@ISM780B.UUCP>
Organization: Eaton IMS, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 27
Summary: Does he speak from experience?

In article <39700009@ISM780B.UUCP>, tim@ISM780B.UUCP writes:
> 
> > GET THIS THRU YOUR HEADS OR TAKE AN OPERATING SYSTEMS CLASS:
> >
> > THE BARE MINIMUM NEEDED FOR MULTITASKING ARE PROCESSOR
> > INTERRUPTS OCCURING AT INTERVALS, AND AN INTERRUPT HANDLER.
> 
> But it isn't SAFE to do it without an MMU!  I want to be able to
> run a random C program and not have to worry about crashing the
> damn machine!
> 
> The MMU does not have to be fancy.  A simple MMU that divides the
> address space of a process into, say, 256 equal size pages would
> be fine.  This is simple to build.
> 
> 						Tim Smith
> 						ihnp4!cithep!tim
> 						ima!is780!tim

Boy that's for sure good buddy! I can't see how anyone who HAS ACTUALLY
tried serious development on a multitasking computer lacking traps
can argue that this is not essential. This is my experience.

		Regards,
			Steve Childress
			{trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex} !wlbr!steve
		        or	 		        ...wlbr!wlbreng1!steve