Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga UNIX
Message-ID: <4079@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jun 88 15:52:30 GMT
References: <1985@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 25

in article <1985@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) says:

> From article <4071@cbmvax.UUCP>, by daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie):
> " If you wanted to restrict your 68000 system in the same way as the 80x86,
> " to 64K segments, you could allow only register relative code to be used.
> " This would give you a fork that's just as good as any on the 80x86 machines.

> It was my understanding that the 80386 is not restricted to 64k segments.

This is true.  However, the discussion my above quote was extracted from was
talking about how segmentation on the original 8088 and on up was an advantage
since it lets you run a fork-able OS.  My point was that the 68000 can do the
exact same thing if you restrict all code and data to being register relative.
Which magically results in the same 64K limitations you'd get with an 8088
or so.  

An 80386, in it's native mode, will handle larger segments.  It's also
competing with 68020/68851 and 68030s, not 68000s.  They are all capable
of running a VAX-like rather than PDP-11-like UNIX.

> 		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
-- 
Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
		"I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"