Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU!ralphw
From: ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Unix OS for //s?
Message-ID: <954@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 24 Feb 88 22:58:34 GMT
References: <21@<880218153959> <64800011@convexe> <452@n8emr.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 22

In article <452@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes:
>
>I would like to see any technical writeups which describe the hardware
>deficienies in the 65816 which prevent preemptive multitasking.  You see,
>I have seen lots of writeups saying that the 65816 is faster than 8088's,
>etc. and I KNOW that Unix version 6 ran on the oldest PDP 11's, which were
>no speed daemons themselves.  So if minix, venix, etc. can run on these 
>junky little ibms, then why in the world couldnt it be ported to the 65815
>with an address space of 8+ meg!!!
No reason.  The 8088 has more general purpose registers, and compiler
technology is more mature (anyone want to port GCC to the 65816?)
Until I get a 65816 (and C compiler for it), I don't have much incentive to 
try the port, though.
I'd be happier with something designed with bank-switching in mind, since
I have two CPU's (6502 in //e, Z80 in PCPI AppliCard) that can do that.
Even C-64's and C-128's can do bank-switching.  CP/M 3.0 machines can bank
switch.  Potentially large but somewhat fragmented market out there.
Bank switching is also better protection than segments, at least.
-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK}
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA