🚀 go-pugleaf

And were we go again.....

From mhorne@tekfdi.UUCP (Mike Horne):

>> >Low-end home computers (those which have 68K's being the _topic_ of
>> >this newsgroup).

>> Note:  Anything having to do with the design of a computer system around
>> a 680X0 is relevent to this newsgroup (MMUs, DRAM, etc.).

Ahem. From the list of lists:

INFO-68K@UCBVAX

   Mailing list for users of OS's capable of running on small 68000 systems, 
   primarly CP/M-68K.  Related systems (OS/9-68K, etc.) and topics welcome.

   Archives are kept on host SIMTEL20 in file:
      PS:<ARCHIVES.68K>68K-ARCHIV.TXT
   They are available via ANONYMOUS FTP from SIMTEL20 for those with TCP/IP 
   access to the Internet.

   All requests to be added to or deleted from this list, problems, questions, 
   etc., should be sent to Info-68K-Request@UCBVAX.

   Coordinator: Mike Meyer <mwm%ucbopal@BERKELEY.EDU>

The coordinaters address is out of date. It should be
mwm@violet.berkeley.edu. The old one still works, though. Note the
words "small 68000 systems." Those currently available don't have
MMU's. Remember: never trust a computer you can't throw across the
room!

On the off chance you weren't aware, mod.computers.68k is the USENet
name for info-68K. Your statement is accurate for comp.sys.m68k. In
fact, to prevent people on that group from gripeing about discussion
of small machines was one of the reasons for creating info-68k.

>> Well, then you get a 68000 with 1MB of DRAM, no VM, a 700 dollar 20MB HD,
>> etc.  If this suits you, fine.  BUT, if you want more ram, VM, more power,
>> etc., it is being developed NOW.  You gotta wait.  I'm totally happy with

I'd rather have what I've got: 68010, 2.5MB dram (yes, it's on 256Kb
chips. It's going to go to 4.5 in the next month or so. I mean, for
$150, who can resist?), no VM. Since I'm planning on playing with
LISP, VM would be a major performance hit. Going to 8.5Meg (or maybe
more) of real is a _lot_ more attractive than adding an MMU.

>> But you would never get me to go back
>> to something without an MMU.  Put it this way:  Once you have tasted the
>> soup, you don't want the dry toast.

Uh, sorry, but I make my living hacking on systems with MMUs. And VM.
On those systems, I miss shared memory, shared libraries, streams,
real IPC, lightweight processes (tasks, if you want to be accurate),
dynamically mountable device drivers, etc., etc., etc.

>> I agree.  Use what you have.  But realized that the next generation of
>> machines will have VM.  The next generation is just around the corner.

If "just around the corner" means 1+ years, I agree. At that time,
I'll think about trading in the current box for something better. Note
that better != bigger&faster, thought that's to be hoped for.

	<mike