Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!topaz!packard!desoto!cbdkc1!gwe
From: gwe@cbdkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart x4021 CB 3D288 WDS )
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga MMU question
Message-ID: <1208@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 13:18:26 EST
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1208
Posted: Fri Nov  8 13:18:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 04:02:17 EST
References: <192@ucdavis.UUCP> <151400006@uicsl>
Reply-To: gwe@dkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart x4021 CB 3D288 WDS )
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 20

In article <151400006@uicsl> hr@uicsl.UUCP writes:
>
>RE:
>"> Multitasking does NOT require an MMU.  Processes are allocated separate
>> places in memory, and then are timesliced..."
>Actually, I have seen a TIMESHARING system that didn't have an MMU.
>A couple of groups here had Alpha Micro systems. The processor was
>the Western Digital "almost an LSI-11" chip set. The operating system
>looked to the user a LOT like DEC's TOPS-10. PPN [1,2] was the system

Long ago and far away, there was a little timeshare system called UNIX that
ran on a PDP11/20 with 56k of usable ram. I have used this system, it was
sold to educational institutes for $200-$400. It was called Mini-Unix and
was a cut down copy of Version 6. There is no doubt in my mind that some
smart soul could find a copy and port it! I know that a version was made that
ran on a PDP11/03 (a.k.a. LSI 11) with floppies! Having an MMU is nice if
you was a more reliable system, but it is not a requirement for timesharing.
-- 
George Erhart at AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus, Ohio 
614-860-4021 {ihnp4,cbosgd}!cbdkc1!gwe