Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!unsvax!jimi!otto!rex From: rex@otto.lvsun.com (Rex Jolliff) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST Message-ID: <968@otto.lvsun.com> Date: 12 Aug 89 10:41:53 GMT References: <8908021826.AA05333@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <62441@linus.UUCP> <4050@hall.cray.com> <62828@linus.UUCP> Reply-To: rex@otto.lvsun.com (Rex Jolliff) Organization: Las Vegas Sun Lines: 32 In article <62828@linus.UUCP> rachamp@mbunix (Champeaux) writes: >Now there's a point to debate. Do you really need memory protection on a >single user multi-tasking computer. On a multi-user computer, memory >protection is a necessity, since if one user's program crashes, you don't >want to bring down the 50 other users. On a personal computer, where cost >is an important factor, is it really necessary? (kind of sounds like the >question "Is multi-tasking really necessary?" doesn't it?) >It would, however, be really nice. >Rich Champeaux (rachamp@mbunix.mitre.org) I don't see why it should cost more than about $20 to implement a reasonable memory management scheme on a personal computer like the Atari ST or the Amiga. It would be real nice to have, especially for software developers. This kind of personal computer really doesn't need it though. I seem to crash each computer equally as often when writing code for them. It takes longer to reboot the Amiga though. Another advantage to a reasonably implemented memory protection/management scheme is that the code to relocate executables before they ran could be eliminated. Rex. -- Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.lvsun.com, {convex, texsun, mirror}!otto!rex) The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -