Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!ugkamins
From: ugkamins@sunybcs.uucp (John Kaminski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking and OS books
Message-ID: <5863@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 14 May 89 05:05:21 GMT
References: <17148@usc.edu> <24279@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <18268@cup.portal.com> <17183@usc.edu> <11336@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <17195@usc.edu> <11373@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <17207@usc.edu>
Sender: nobody@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: ugkamins@sunybcs.UUCP (John Kaminski)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 24

In article <17207@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
.
.
.
=>Notice that UNIX was also implemented on 8088
=>machines: PC/IX run on an IBM XT.  You seem to confuse memory protection and
=>supervisor mode. You don't need memory protection to implement a pre-emptive 
=>OS; you need only supervisor mode.

You seem to confuse preemptive scheduling capability and hardware requirements
for it.  Since when does an 8088 have a supervisor mode?


(not intending to flame, but curious why you seem a bit self-contradictory)

---
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG                      _ _
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG                     ////
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG                    ////
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG                   ////
In the jungle                   _ _   ////
The silicon jungle              \\\\ ////
The process sleeps tonight       \\\////
                                  \_X_/