Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!mot!waycott
From: waycott@mot.UUCP (John Waycott)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Re: Amiga MMU question
Message-ID: <436@mot.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 21:59:57 EST
Article-I.D.: mot.436
Posted: Tue Nov  5 21:59:57 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Nov-85 03:37:26 EST
References: <192@ucdavis.UUCP> <141@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <397@aum.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ  85282
Lines: 28

> 
> > Multitasking does NOT require an MMU...
> > 
> > Correctly written programs run without any problems, however.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think that this statement should be shanged to "bug free" software should
> run without any problem....
> ... I will be interested,
> now that there are alot of multitasking no-protection systems around, to see if
> they are usable in a professional scenario where a crash could do more harm
> than just annoy the user...

I have worked with Alpha Microsystems' computers for many years.  These are
multi-user machines used mostly in small-medium sized businesses.  Although
they have no MMU protection, my experience has been that these systems crash
almost exclusively due to program bugs.  On the other hand, I have found
complete crashes to be the exception, rather than the rule when a program
runs into the weeds.

I feel, however, that the state of the technology is such that MMU's should
be a matter of course in any new computer designs.  Alpha Micro's systems
are successful because they are used almost exclusively in business
applications where very little program development goes on and users are
using canned programs where the serious bugs have been removed.
-- 
John Waycott, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ, (602) 438-3164
{seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4, attunix}!mot!waycott
oakhill!mot!waycott@ut-sally.ARPA