Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bionet!agate!pasteur!ames!elroy!peregrine!ccicpg!zardoz!dhw68k!arcturus!felix!kehr
From: kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: When will MacOS get virtual memory?
Message-ID: <63094@felix.UUCP>
Date: 12 Oct 88 14:17:37 GMT
References: <5624@zodiac.UUCP> <76000290@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <39513@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <271@cvbnet2.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 17

In article <271@cvbnet2.UUCP> pcolby@robbie.UUCP (Peter Colby) writes:
>And in fact, I have seen UNIX running
>on pure 68000 machines (UNIX *IS* a multiuser virtual-memory system). The
>machine was a COSMOS, dated sometime in the vicinity of 1980-1981.
>

And at my former job with Pertec Computer, I wrote documentation for a 
proprietary operating system that was multiuser multitasking.  You can
start up to 256 tasks on a simple 68000 using that OS.  The machine also
runs Unix and Pick (take your pick - pun intended).  While the Pertec 
machine is a business machine that doesn't do graphics, it supported around
64 terminals.  Those terminals could be intelligent (64k Z80 processors)
running CP/M and any of its applications.  So, while I don't pretend to
understand most of this discussion, I know that it is quite possible to
have multiuser multitasking  on a 68000.  Don't ask me if they use virtual
memory; I wouldn't know.  (And when I bought the SE's, I had more memory
than many of our customers who ran with only 1 meg.