Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!iscuva!jimc
From: jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC 3.0 memory...it's not their fault!
Message-ID: <1658@iscuva.ISCS.COM>
Date: 24 Jun 88 19:22:51 GMT
References: <242@hodge.UUCP>
Organization: ISC Systems Corporation, Spokane, WA
Lines: 26

In article <242@hodge.UUCP> adail@pnet06.cts.com (Alan Dail) writes:
>One thing I think you are overlooking in complaining about the fact that
>the Mac OS doesn't support virtural memory yet is that any system I know
>of that supports virtural memory seem to require 2-4 MB just for the OS.

The Kernel (both code and data) of our Unix variant occupies about
250K.  We run in 1MB of physical RAM, and can in fact run (though quite
a bit slower due to increased swapping) in 512K of RAM.  The virtual
space is 2MB right now because of a limit in the MMU.

It _is_ possible to run virtual on smaller machines.  The biggest
problem seems to be programmers who then don't realize that these _are_
smaller machines!

Of course, I am not proposing that VM could just drop into the Mac OS for a
paltry memory fee.  There are a lot of technical issues to solve (unless you
want VM with no intertask protection -- that would be quite a bit easier).

+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC Systems Corp.
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!iscuva!jimc
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			"With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"