Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU!bryce
From: bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Wishlist for 1.3 Executive.
Message-ID: <8707291107.AA05244@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 07:07:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: cogsci.8707291107.AA05244
Posted: Wed Jul 29 07:07:17 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 31-Jul-87 02:23:40 EDT
References: <8707250710.AA00716@cogsci.berkeley.edu> <308@l5comp.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, UC Berkeley
Lines: 59

In article <308@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
In article <> bryce@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU types:
>
> ...Or "I don't know if I'll be using some EA software or not so I'll boot
> with FAST ram disabled" and never stops, then one days wonders where all
> the other ram went. :)

Hrmph!	If any user holds down control and F3 to disable their ram EACH
TIME they boot, then wonders where it all went they paid too much for their
computer.  I'd recomend switching to something cut out of a magazine. :-)



>What I want is a BLOCKER. This blocker would block any FURTHER allocation
>from certain ram types/ranges etc. This is different from the current
>schemes where the extra ram is disabled/dismounted by some means...
>...This way you can have your cake and eat it too!

It's on the A500/A200 workbench.  It's called nofastmem, and even comes
with a slick icon.  It's all you asked for.  "poof".



>Hmm, this blocker could also be tagged by task ID so that a certain task
>could be selected for special treatment "Give this task no FAST ram".

That's possible.  Just SetFunction AllocMem() and AvailMem().  Do a
FindTask(0) to see who called you, and check the table.  Remember to make
that code re-entrant and place it memory allocated as PUBLIC.



>>this feature in their handler code?  Just distribute a trivial little program
>>to fire off ACTION_PREPARE_FOR_DOOM along with the documentation.
>
>This is exactly my fear. Once this starts then everyone will start defining
>their own ACTION's and all hell will break loose. Byte by Byte will write a
>shutdown manager and their software will know it, then C Ltd will do another
>and of course it won't get a flying leap for Byte by Byte's etc etc etc

Sorry, you missed the strongly implied COMMODORE-AMIGA COULD at the start
of that.  It would be pure terror for everyone and his goldfish to take off
and start defining packets.



>>[UUNET] may much more economical than a long distance call.  Their address
>>is UUNET.UU.NET , seismo!uunet would probably also work.
>Thanks for the hint.

Here's a better hint.  If you have a system that has a costly feed, send
you US snail mail address to usenix!madeline.  You will be send a packet
describing UUNET communications services.

-----------------------------
|\ /|  . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH)
{o O} . 
( " )	bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce
  U	"Success leads to stagnation; stagnation leads to failure."