Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Free Software Foundation (was: Re: Mach, the new standard?)
Message-ID: <819@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Sep-87 00:40:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.819
Posted: Fri Sep 25 00:40:35 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 18:39:29 EDT
References: <8490@think.UUCP> <1745@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 26
Summary: This must be some new definition of virtual memory...
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:2342 comp.unix.wizards:4475 comp.os.minix:1712

In article <1745@ncr-sd>, greg@ncr-sd (Greg Noel) writes:
> In article <8490@think.UUCP> rlk@THINK.COM writes:
> >....  The PDP11 didn't have virtual memory either,
> >if my memory serves me.  ....
> 
> At the risk of re-opening an old debate, the PDP-11 \does/ have virtual
> memory.  It's just that, for various technical reasons, the original Unix
> implementation for it chose to use swapping instead of paging as its virtual
> memory technique.

And neither did any other operating system for the PDP-11 (RSX, RSTS, RT-11),
probably because it didn't in fact have the capability of supporting VM.
Why do you think DEC developed the Virtual Address Extension (VAX) in the
first place?

> Yes, it's a nit, but the PDP-11 is a fine machine, and deserves to be
> remembered correctly.

As a great little non-virtual system. Nothing wromng with that. Sometimes
virtual memory means virtual performance, as a good many PDP-11 fans have
pointed out. You can run way more users on and get way better real-time response
from a PDP 11/70 than any VAX you care to name.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
--                 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.