Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!kdmoen From: kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP (Doug Moen) Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.cbm Subject: Re: Amiga vs. ST Message-ID: <2344@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 15:22:00 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2344 Posted: Mon Aug 12 15:22:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 02:42:52 EDT References: <268@ihnet.UUCP> <1669@hao.UUCP> <5436@fortune.UUCP> <338@eneevax.UUCP> Reply-To: kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP (Doug Moen) Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 15 Xref: watmath net.micro.atari:1018 net.micro.cbm:1616 Summary: >The multitasking feature (of the Amiga) is a >definite plus, but again here it is not multitasking in the way us >unix users are used to. Since there is no memory management the >programs have to be well behaved and are limited to 32k segments. Not true. Programs can be arbitrarily large (since addresses are relocated at process startup time) and they don't have to be well behaved (since address faults, etc are trapped on a per-process basis). I got this information from one of the people who designed the Amiga's multitasking operating system. All in all, I was very impressed by the number of things that they got right. -- Doug Moen (watmath!watcgl!kdmoen) University of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab