🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <652@opal.tubopal.UUCP> alderaan@tubopal.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes:
>
>  What's all this about MultiTasking on the ST ? You don't have a MMU (not
>really and I think that's the worst failure in the ST's hardware architechture),
>so you are definetely not able to run a *secure* multitasking on this machine
>even if you want to - basta. All what you can call protected memory inside the 
>ST is a bunch of bytes at the bottom plus the hardware registers - that's it.
>  If you want to realize reasonable memory segmentation (in my experience this
>is essential for TimeSharing) you MUST have a MMU.
>
>-- 
>Thomas Cervera         | UUCP:   alderaan@tubopal.UUCP       
>SysMan RKOpdp (RSTS/E) |         alderaan%tubopal.UUCP@TUB.BITNET (saves $$$)
>D-1000 Berlin 30       |         ...!pyramid!unido!tub!opal!alderaan
>Motzstrasze 14         | BITNET: alderaan%tub@DB0TUI11.BITNET 

Oh really?  Then how do you explain the appearance of Minix (a Unix
look-alike) for the Atari ST?

I have cross posted this to the Minix newsgroup.  I thought you (Thomas)
might be interested in telling those who gave the ST multitasking
just why what they have done is not possible.

I agree that the Atari hardware is not designed for multitasking but
that does not make it impossible, only less efficient.  By creating
multitasking systems for the ST (like Minix and MX2) people are telling
Atari that we want multitasking and would like the hardware to
support it.


Steven W. Klassen
Computer Science Major
University of Waterloo