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 ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!ut-sally!crandell
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Unix w/o Memory Mgt.; what the IBM PC could have been
Message-ID: <3836@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 20:04:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3836
Posted: Tue Dec 17 20:04:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 03:00:20 EST
References: <1825@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: crandell@sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 15

In article <1825@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>  Basically, you could have partitioned the memory, using the
>segment registers as base registers, assumed a fixed 64K bound on process
>size, and written your compilers using the small memory model.  The system
>would not be secure (since assembly-language routines could just change
>the segmentation registers and bypass the whole thing), but it would be
>possible to demonstrate that programs written in a HLL would be reasonably
>safe, as long as they didn't modify their code.  The result would have
>been something like a single-CPU, multitasking 8080.

Congratulations.  You've just invented PC/IX.
-- 

    Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin
               {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell