Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:32403 comp.sys.mac.programmer:6556
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!hodas
From: hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0
Message-ID: <11317@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 23 May 89 13:57:42 GMT
References: <3353@tank.uchicago.edu> <18660@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Josh Hodas)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 33

In article <18660@cup.portal.com> Greg_Mark_Finnegan@cup.portal.com writes:
>Jonathan Garber's quote ("...there's only one way to do virtual memory...")
>bothers me a bit.  The Connectix VM scheme limits you to 8Meg period. Apple's
>method lets you go to 14Meg by mucking with NuBus (in 24 bit mode) and gobs
>more in 32 bit mode.
>
>Sounds like 2 ways to do virtual memory to me (and probably a judge).
>
>Greg.

No, No, No, No, No.   You are confusing 2 issues.  Apples VM scheme allows the
full Operating system's Memory range to be handled, as does Virtual's.  It's
just that at the moment the OS allows only 8 Megs.  If apple had VM now it 
would have the same constraints as Connectix's.  It's just that Apple is wait-
ing to do VM until thay also support full Memory Range.  Connectix said all
along that as soon as the OS supports more than 8 Megs they will
release a version of virtual that does.

Note that this has nothing to do with the merits of Garber's statement (that is
my point) and I have little opinion on that matter.  I suspect that the key
to the truth of that statement lies in what someone recently quoted Garber as
saying, that there is only one way "without a full OS rewrite"; which is exact-
ly what Apple is doing.

Josh
-------------------------

Josh Hodas    (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)
4223 Pine Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 222-7112   (home)
(215) 898-5423   (school office)