Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!amdahl!rtech!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0 Q & A -- memory protection (none)
Message-ID: <7350@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 18 May 89 06:12:10 GMT
References: <1838@internal.Apple.COM> <7320@hoptoad.uucp> <1906@internal.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 22

In article <1906@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes:
>The System 7.0 virtual memory implementation sits under MultiFinder.  
>Everything is the same as it is now, except that MultiFinder thinks it has 
>more RAM to work with.  The heaps are all allocated contiguously from the 
>large address space.

The so-called large address space of 14 megabytes imposed by the
unclean ROM, you mean?  So processes can't even grow, and you can have
a grand total of seven processes each sitting in its own dinky
two-megabyte address space?  Sheesh.  This is sounding sillier and
sillier.  It seems like this virtual memory only serves one of the many
functions usually associated with virtual memory, extending physical
RAM.  Process memory spaces aren't protected and they can't grow past
their initial allocation.  Why doesn't Apple just wait until they can
do it right?
-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim
"Do what you wanna, do what you will;
 Just don't mess up your neighbor's thrill.
 And when you pay the bill, kindly leave a little tip
 To help the next poor sucker on his one-way trip."
    - Frank Zappa, "You Are What You Is"