From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:06:33 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] 68000 vs. 8086 ( was Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs) In-Reply-To: <57757a21.LPn+mSLKqXszpxKR%schily@schily.net> References: <20160630134457.BE26B18C103@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <6bec9228a3749e424f479675e12b0e71.squirrel@webmail.yaccman.com> <57757a21.LPn+mSLKqXszpxKR%schily@schily.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Dan Cross 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. Sorry, I was referring to using a 68851 with a 68010; I'd imagine that by the time the 68851 was appearing in new designs, it was paired with the 68020. Wow. *12* 68451s? That's pretty wild. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: