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