Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!purdue!decwrl!pyramid!prls!mips!sultra!dtynan
From: dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: 532DK "do-it-yourself" kits...
Summary: An MMU *is* required.
Keywords: The Ultimate Scrooge...
Message-ID: <2632@sultra.UUCP>
Date: 9 Nov 88 23:58:11 GMT
References: <2613@sultra.UUCP> <7532@nsc.nsc.com> <1039@stratus.UUCP> <7642@nsc.nsc.com>
Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 28

In article <7642@nsc.nsc.com>, grenley@nsc.nsc.com (George Grenley) writes:
> 
> (much discussion of the relative merits of cg16 versus 532 systems deleted)
> 
> GBS points out that minix, et al, do not require an MMU.  I stand corrected;
> with only the defense of being merely a hardware type...
> 
> George R. Grenley                 Disclaimer: my opinions are unchanging law.

As I pointed out in an earlier posting, if an MMU is available, it should be
used.  The *only* reason MINIX doesn't require an MMU, is because the brain-
dead IBM-PC doesn't have one.  George, you were correct in the first place.
Just because MINIX doesn't demand that you put one in, is no reason to leave
it out.  It is far and away easier to develop code when the system is protected
by some sort of MMU.  Furthermore, I don't think anyone is interested in
designing/building a system which is comparable to '82 designs (ie, the PC).
Not having an MMU means that if you want to run multi-tasking, then the OS
is forced to relocate the code each time it executes.  For those of you who
argue that they don't want to do multi-tasking, don't forget that print-
spooling can technically be considered as multi-tasking.  In sum, the MMU is
an outstanding piece of work.  It alone, is what dragged me away from the
grip of Motorola.  So, PLEASE, don't leave it out.
						- Der
-- 
	dtynan@sultra.UUCP  (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{mips,pyramid}!sultra!dtynan

 ---  God invented alcohol to keep the Irish from taking over the planet  ---