Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!fortune!rpw3 From: rpw3@fortune.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Re: Lisa/2, Mac's BIG BROTHER? & wha - (nf) Message-ID: <2599@fortune.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 23:07:34 EST Article-I.D.: fortune.2599 Posted: Tue Feb 21 23:07:34 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 08:25:16 EST Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 25 #R:rlgvax:-173400:fortune:28000010:000:882 fortune!rpw3 Feb 21 19:38:00 1984 Sorry, Guy, your comments on disks are well said, but... The Mac's hardware is no less suited to multi-tasking than the IBM PC's is (which I agree isn't saying all that much). There is no problem, in principle, with requiring PC-relative code from the "C" compiler, and then just using the register context as the "MMU". Even if you don't do that, you can make the compiler use some register(s) as "base" registers (anybody for a7/a6 = "stack"/"stackframe", a5 = "text", a4 = "data" iff "split I/D" ??). No, it is not convenient, but it is also NOT slow. Look at "xxx" vs. "xxx(a5)". From one who used to run MANY-tasked network nodes including "virtual hosts" on the lowly PDP-8 (with NO index registers)... Rob Warnock UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3 DDD: (415)595-8444 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065