Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Programming MS-Windows vs. Amiga (Re: resource tracking) Message-ID: <5353@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 8 Mar 90 14:09:45 GMT References: <1165@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> <5214@sugar.hackercorp.com> <23118@usc.edu> <5219@sugar.hackercorp.com> <23157@usc.edu> <261@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <3908@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <1990Mar7.172957.18884@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 18 > Apparently you (you being Peter DaSilva) are missing the Sorry, but you're the victim of erroneous attributions. None of that was my words. However, memory protection in and of itself doesn't make a system slow. Protected memory systems are quite capable of real-time performance. But it's quite a bit harder to design both protected memory and real-time. DEC had the resources to do it, Commodore didn't. Leaving memory protection out of the Amiga was certainly a reasonable choice from both a hardware and a software viewpoint. The only reason OS/2 and Windows are slow is they're hobbled by nominal conformance to an incompetantly-designed (or some would say non-designed) piece of system software: MS-DOS. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva . / \ \_.--._/ I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'