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