Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!lzaz!hcj
From: hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM (HC Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: PC Minix/64KB limit
Summary: If you use .exe, it won't be MINIX
Message-ID: <415@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Feb 89 21:53:57 GMT
References: <8752@louie.udel.EDU>
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA
Lines: 29

In article <8752@louie.udel.EDU>, ONM64%DMSWWU1A.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> 
> That's just once too much to take. I really am unable to see why
> Minix/PC can't support large Applications in the same way that
> Minix/ST does.
> 
Kai somewhat misses the mark here.
The beauty of MINIX/pc is that which the partitions less than 64 KB, the
xx86 microprocessors are true virtual memory machines.  MINIX took this
and made a neet UNIX(r) look alike.  It would even be possible to add
swapping to it!

The Atari version had to handle the problem of glueing each processes into 
memory at a fixed location.  This is expensive, in lost space, and in
S L O W switching between parent and child (before an exec occurs).  The 
Atari ST makes up for this somewhat by often having >= 1 MEG of memory.

I must admit, that I have an ATARI, and would have been really peaved
if the programs were limited to 64 K.  But then, the libc screws up all over
limiting us to 32 or 64K activities.

Ultimately, the next unsupported port of MINIX/pc will be to a PC with more
memory and use the ATARI version as the porting base.  I would suspect
that AST may shed a small tear, tho, if this were done.

Howard C. Johnson
ATT Bell Labs
att!lzaz!hcj
hcj@lzaz.att.com