Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #14201Re: Amiga Resource tracking & Protection.
From: Checkpoint Technologies
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 1990 21:51
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 1990 21:51
17 lines
1451 bytes
1451 bytes
In article <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: >> If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead and drop >> backwards compatibility completely for the sake of memory protection, >> then go ahead and say so, but keep in mind that the above two points >> are the Gospell truth. >> Valentin > >I am in favor of this. There will be a period of pain, but in the end >the Amiga will become a much more robust computer. I prefer a dual-standard OS. Let it run unprotected programs (and when they crash, the whole OS and computer crashes) and protected programs concurrently. Allow programs written for 'protected mode' to be run on a machine without an MMU, and consequently without protection. This should provide for an easier upgrade path and will encourage developers to use the new mode even when 90% of Amigas don't have hardware memory protection.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<19460@grebyn.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!mintaka!think!samsung!usc!apple!ames!haven!grebyn!ckpReferences:
<208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!mintaka!think!samsung!usc!apple!ames!haven!grebyn!ckp From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Amiga Resource tracking & Protection. Message-ID: <19460@grebyn.com> Date: 13 Mar 90 21:51:45 GMT References: <208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies) Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA Lines: 17