Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!mintaka!think!samsung!usc!apple!ames!haven!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Amiga Resource tracking & Protection.
Message-ID: <19460@grebyn.com>
Date: 13 Mar 90 21:51:45 GMT
References: <208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 17

In article <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes:
>> If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead and drop
>> backwards compatibility completely for the sake of memory protection,
>> then go ahead and say so, but keep in mind that the above two points
>> are the Gospell truth.
>>	Valentin
>
>I am in favor of this.  There will be a period of pain, but in the end
>the Amiga will become a much more robust computer.

	I prefer a dual-standard OS. Let it run unprotected programs (and
when they crash, the whole OS and computer crashes) and
protected programs concurrently.  Allow programs written for 'protected mode'
to be run on a machine without an MMU, and consequently without protection.
This should provide for an easier upgrade path and will encourage
developers to use the new mode even when 90% of Amigas don't have
hardware memory protection.