Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Still, the point that the 68451 MMU was pretty lame is well taken. The
> segment table was too small (96 entries?) and it was clearly designed to
> support segmented memory rather than paging. It is inadequate to the latter
> task. The 68851 available for the 68020 got it right; supposedly this could
> be used with the 68010 as well, but I don't know that anyone ever tried
> that in a real product.

We at H.Berthold AG in Berlin did manage to use 12 68451 in parallel for our 
virtual UNOS variant.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'