View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher[_2_] The Natural Philosopher[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Good place to ask about XP memory problems

Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article m,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message

-september.

org
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
[snip]
If only Apple had allowed the clones to build Macs back in the 80s

yes we would still be stuck with an OS that didn't even do

virtual memory.
Windows did that for years before macOS.

No that's bull****. It would have been accurate had you said that
Windows
had protected memory before MacOS.

Well that's not surprising.. it wasn't until the 68030 series came

out that there was a working MMU to run the protection and
coincidently support paging and VM.
That is true for Motorola CPUs as used by Apple.

Mmmm no (again). The 030 was the first in the 68k line to have an

*on-board* MMU. You could perfectly well use a 68020 and use the 68851
MMU as a co-processor with it.

Which MacOS used one of those?


The later versions of classic MacOS, with virtual memory, would
certainly have run on an 020 Mac with MMU.

Anyway they didn't work very well.


Do you mean the 020? (Used in the TGV and Eurofighter according to
WinkyPedia). Or the MMU.

Having written a tiny OS for the 68000 (see
http://www.clothears.org.uk) I can state that it's a much better
processor than the 8086 ever was. Just a shame that the 68008 wasn't out
in time for IBM to use in the original PC instead of the 8088.

+1
Far better chip.

Segmentation was a complete ******* without proper paging 386 was first
DECENT 32 bitter