Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM!mhorne
From: mhorne@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.computers.68k
Subject: Submission for mod-computers-68k
Message-ID: <8702270458.AA05878@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 23:58:09 EST
Article-I.D.: tekfdi.8702270458.AA05878
Posted: Thu Feb 26 23:58:09 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 08:05:27 EST
Sender: mwm@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 68
Approved: info-68k@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Path: tekfdi!mhorne
From: mhorne@tekfdi.TEK.COM (Mike Horne)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.68k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: ...
Message-ID: <801@tekfdi.TEK.COM>
Date: 27 Feb 87 04:58:08 GMT
Reply-To: mhorne@tekfdi.UUCP (Mike Horne)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 58

In an incredibly recent article by mwm...

>> >Low-end home computers (those which have 68K's being the _topic_ of
>> >this newsgroup).

>> Note:  Anything having to do with the design of a computer system around
>> a 680X0 is relevent to this newsgroup (MMUs, DRAM, etc.).

> Ahem. From the list of lists:

> INFO-68K@UCBVAX

>    Mailing list for users of OS's capable of running on small 68000 systems, 
>    primarly CP/M-68K.  Related systems (OS/9-68K, etc.) and topics welcome.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, Mike, tell me what "Related systems and topics" is/are?  Since
not specifically defined, it is left open for interpretation.  By the way,
I would consider the hardware (memory, etc.) to be a "related topic",
or are you able to run your "small 68000 system" without these?  If so,
you've got something there...
 
> I'd rather have what I've got: 68010, 2.5MB dram (yes, it's on 256Kb
> chips. It's going to go to 4.5 in the next month or so. I mean, for
> $150, who can resist?), no VM. Since I'm planning on playing with
> LISP, VM would be a major performance hit. Going to 8.5Meg (or maybe
> more) of real is a _lot_ more attractive than adding an MMU.

Before you got to 4.5 or 8.5, you better check your power supply specs.
That many chips can/will draw a lot of juice.  Just a suggestion.

> Uh, sorry, but I make my living hacking on systems with MMUs. And VM.
> On those systems, I miss shared memory, shared libraries, streams,
> real IPC, lightweight processes (tasks, if you want to be accurate),
> dynamically mountable device drivers, etc., etc., etc.

Hmmm...  Well, this may be where we disagree.  I prefer to have my own
copy of everything.  That way no one can get into trouble.  With an 8MB
address space, I can't go wrong.  And still every process has access to
all of the system resources.  I can still fork(), and I can still make
my binaries share resources.  The so-called 'advantages' of shared
this-n-that are really known as limitations due to the hardware.  Machines
are growing, and the 'small system' ideas of today are going to look
really 'small' (gee, remember those nice little 8080 base machines?  Boy,
those were really powerful!  Wanna go back to them?  They had shared memory!).
I'd say the next generation of 'small systems' are going to be based around
the 68020, 320XX, and 80386 CPUs.  And they will have memory managment.  It's
a fact of life.

Mike

(P.S.  This is my last one.  How about one more rebuttal on your part?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Horne - KA7AXD              FDI group, Tektronix, Incorporated
 INTERNET: mhorne@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com
 CSNET:    mhorne@tekfdi.fdi.tek.csnet@csnet-relay.csnet
 UUCP:     {ucbvax,decvax,hplabs,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekfdi!mhorne