Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!DMasterson
From: DMasterson@cup.portal.com (David Scott Masterson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: MMUs and Re: inconsistent gadget function parameter orderin
Message-ID: <18226@cup.portal.com>
Date: 11 May 89 06:35:53 GMT
References: <7989@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <6752@cbmvax.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 14

In message <6752@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP writes:
>...							In order for per-
>task protection to work, you'd have to have an MMU table, or at least a part
>of one, added on to the context information for each task.

Question:

Why did the Unix PC 7300 from AT&T seem to work so well with Unix when it 
was only running a 68000 (at most a 68010)?  Just curious, and I'm not to 
familiar with its internals.  Therefore, could something like it did work
on the Amiga?

David Masterson
DMasterson@cup.portal.com