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