home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: OS features
- Date: 7 Jan 1996 03:23:41 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4cnard$a19@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <49tus6$os0@news.missouri.edu> <4cfvv3$pec@serpens.rhein.de> <w7lBAMD1A7aaz6@0dietmar.tomate.tng.oche.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- DIETMAR@TOMATE.TNG.OCHE.DE (Dietmar Eilert) writes:
-
- >mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst) schrieb am 04.01.1996:
- >ME> >This is a common misconception. There is no significant performance hit
- >ME> >with virtual memory
-
- >There will be a performance loss due to the fact that memory protection
- >doesn't allow passing pointers to memory blocks in order to share data
- >between tasks.
-
- This is of course true, but as you may read we talked about _virtual
- memory_ and not about _memory protection_.
-
- >Special functions have to be used to exchange data (e.g.
- >memory mapped files).
-
- Memory mapped files are one possibility but not necesarily one that would
- be chosen for a protected AmigaOS (in fact, this would be nearly fully
- incompatible with AmigaOS).
-
- There are also degrees of protection if you "just" want stable
- operation in case of buggy software. Of course, if you want a
- secure multi-user system you have less choices.
-
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-