ollef@osiris.sics.se (Olle Furberg) (04/05/89)
Hi!
How many Mb (maximum) do I get with the Virtual-init on a MacIIx/SE30 ?
Someone told me that I can't get more than 8 Meg. Suppose I have 8 Meg
HardWare memory, is Virtual of any use?
If it is a limit for Virtual, is this a general limit for the 030-MMU?
/Ollemithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (04/05/89)
In article <2615@osiris.sics.se>, ollef@osiris.sics.se (Olle Furberg) writes: > How many Mb (maximum) do I get with the Virtual-init on a MacIIx/SE30 ? > Someone told me that I can't get more than 8 Meg. Suppose I have 8 Meg > HardWare memory, is Virtual of any use? > If it is a limit for Virtual, is this a general limit for the 030-MMU? This has been discussed before: Currently, the Mac operating system limits you to only (and I choke on only) 8MB of memory. In the future, I would expect to see a rewrite of the OS to allow for up to 32MB, but right now it is not feasible. So, in general 8MB is the limit, period, for any of the 020 or 030 machines. (I believe that the reason for the 8MB limit is that the ROM routines are mapped beginning right after this 8MB ceiling.) Unless of course you use A/UX. I don't believe that it has this restriction, allowing up to 32MB of real memory. I remember someone recently posting a message saying that they were using 4MB SIMMs (a set of 4 of these) giving them 16 MB, all of which was usable by A/UX, but the Mac II he was using just ignored the upper 8MB. Note that this didn't produce any problems. -Michael -- Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)
hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (04/05/89)
In article <2615@osiris.sics.se> ollef@sics.se writes: > > Hi! > > How many Mb (maximum) do I get with the Virtual-init on a MacIIx/SE30 ? >Someone told me that I can't get more than 8 Meg. Suppose I have 8 Meg >HardWare memory, is Virtual of any use? > If it is a limit for Virtual, is this a general limit for the 030-MMU? > > /Olle If you already have 8 Megs, then, at the moment, Virtual is useless for you. This is not a limitation of Virtual, but rather of the current Mac OS which can only address 8 Megs. (My go, did I just say "only 8 Megs", my first machine had 16k). Anyway, when (and if) Apple releases a full 32 bit OS, then Connectix claims they will write a version that will give you as much virtual memory as you want (up to, what is it, 4 Gigs?). Josh ------------------------- Josh Hodas (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) 4223 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-7112 (home) (215) 898-5423 (school office)
wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (04/05/89)
There is an 8 meg limit on Virtual, but not because of hardware or Virtual. The current version of the Mac OS (6.0.3) can't deal with more than 8 megs... A/UX can, but (I believe) it has virtual memory in it (have to, I guess). Support for >8megs should be in 7.0... and possibly an INIT or other piece of software that does what Virtual does in an Apple-sanctioned way. In short: there is no use for Virtual if you already have 8 megs. b.bum wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (04/06/89)
In article <9586@netnews.upenn.edu> hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Josh Hodas) writes: (stuff deleted) > Anyway, when (and if) Apple releases a full 32 bit OS, >then Connectix claims they will write a version that will give you as much >virtual memory as you want (up to, what is it, 4 Gigs?). > Of course, when Apple releases an OS that uses paged memory and can address as much memory as the CPU will allow, I think that virtual memory will be an intrinsic part of that System (as well as, eventually, interprocess communication and all the other bells, whistles, and buzzwords that avid readers of MacWeek have been saturated with these past several months). At that point, Connectix must come up with a better mousetrap. One man's opinion... John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 | | (415) 549-2684 | |
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (04/06/89)
In article <6514@bsu-cs.UUCP> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: <In article <2615@osiris.sics.se>, ollef@osiris.sics.se (Olle Furberg) writes: <> How many Mb (maximum) do I get with the Virtual-init on a MacIIx/SE30 ? <> Someone told me that I can't get more than 8 Meg. Suppose I have 8 Meg <> HardWare memory, is Virtual of any use? <> If it is a limit for Virtual, is this a general limit for the 030-MMU? <This has been discussed before: Currently, the Mac operating system <limits you to only (and I choke on only) 8MB of memory. I thought the question was about the Virtual init. I presumed that Olle was either using A/UX or looking ahead to the future when the 8Mbyte limit didn't exist. I suspect the answer is that Virtual might not access more than 8 Mbytes today, but that there is no reason for any limit as soon as it is usable by the Mac. They already did a second version of the init for 030 machines so they seem committed to keeping up. As to A/UX support, I suspect you'd have to ask them. Shirley Kehr In the future, >I would expect to see a rewrite of the OS to allow for up to 32MB, but >right now it is not feasible. So, in general 8MB is the limit, period, >for any of the 020 or 030 machines. (I believe that the reason for the >8MB limit is that the ROM routines are mapped beginning right after this >8MB ceiling.) > >Unless of course you use A/UX. I don't believe that it has this restriction, >allowing up to 32MB of real memory. I remember someone recently posting a >message saying that they were using 4MB SIMMs (a set of 4 of these) giving >them 16 MB, all of which was usable by A/UX, but the Mac II he was using >just ignored the upper 8MB. Note that this didn't produce any problems. > >-Michael > > > >-- >Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas >Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu >Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)
FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Todd Wilson) (04/07/89)
In article <22668@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes: >In article <9586@netnews.upenn.edu> hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Josh Hodas) writes: >Of course, when Apple releases an OS that uses paged memory and can >address as much memory as the CPU will allow, I think that virtual >memory will be an intrinsic part of that System (as well as, eventually, >interprocess communication and all the other bells, whistles, and >buzzwords that avid readers of MacWeek have been saturated with these >past several months). At that point, Connectix must come up with >a better mousetrap. > >One man's opinion... > >John Heckendorn I read somewhere (MacWeek, I think) a comment made by someone at Connectix to the effect that they had patented (or whatever) the Init and that, as far as they knew, their method was the only way to do virtual memory for the Mac OS. In other words, more legal squabling. But it sounds a little fishy... Anyone with any ideas on this? -Todd Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of Princeton University or Apple Computer, Inc.
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (04/08/89)
In article <2615@osiris.sics.se> ollef@sics.se writes: > How many Mb (maximum) do I get with the Virtual-init on a MacIIx/SE30 ? >Someone told me that I can't get more than 8 Meg. Suppose I have 8 Meg >HardWare memory, is Virtual of any use? > If it is a limit for Virtual, is this a general limit for the 030-MMU? This limit of 8 megs is not a Virtual Limit it is the limit of the current Macintosh OS. Once System Software allows for more than 8 megs then Virtual will be able to go as high as you have disk space for. As the 68020 and up can address much more memory than the Mac OS allows. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-Sysop FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything)
mha@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mark H. Anbinder) (04/09/89)
In article <90725@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >In article <6514@bsu-cs.UUCP> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: ><In article <2615@osiris.sics.se>, ollef@osiris.sics.se (Olle Furberg) writes: ><> How many Mb (maximum) do I get with the Virtual-init on a MacIIx/SE30 ? ><> Someone told me that I can't get more than 8 Meg. Suppose I have 8 Meg ><> HardWare memory, is Virtual of any use? ><> If it is a limit for Virtual, is this a general limit for the 030-MMU? > ><This has been discussed before: Currently, the Mac operating system ><limits you to only (and I choke on only) 8MB of memory. > >I thought the question was about the Virtual init. I presumed that Olle >was either using A/UX or looking ahead to the future when the 8Mbyte >limit didn't exist. > >I suspect the answer is that Virtual might not access more than 8 Mbytes >today, but that there is no reason for any limit as soon as it is usable >by the Mac. They already did a second version of the init for 030 machines >so they seem committed to keeping up. As to A/UX support, I suspect you'd >have to ask them. Actually, Virtual does not work with A/UX, which uses its own virtual memory scheme. Both Michael and Shirley are correct that the limit of 8 megabytes RAM is a limit within the operating system, and NOT with the Virtual software from Connectix. So, the answer to Olle's question is that Virtual is utterly useless to him, RIGHT NOW, if he already has 8 megabytes of physical memory. All he'd be doing is making a perfect copy of physical memory on his hard drive. That brings up a couple of potentially interesting possibilities for crash-recovery, but I won't get into that now. :-) Connectix is indeed dedicated to continuously updating Virtual to take advantage of all improvements to the Mac, in both hardware and software. Virtual currently runs on all 68020 and '030 machines, i.e. Mac II, IIx, IIcx, and SE/30. As soon as the Macintosh operating system supports the use of more than 8 megs, it's quite likely that Connectix will be there with a version of Virtual that can give you as much memory as you're willing to give it disk space. :-) Good thing magnetic SCSI storage is cheaper than DRAM! :-) Calling Connectix is definitely a good idea if you want more information about what's likely to be available when. Their number is 415-324-0727 (Pacific Daylight Time). Unfortunately, Connectix is not yet on the net. Disclaimer: I am not involved with Connectix except as an EXTREMELY happy customer. I keep in touch with them, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. If I don't know, I'll find out. -- Mark H. Anbinder ** MHA@TCGould.tn.cornell.edu NG33 MVR Hall, Media Services Dept. ** THCY@CRNLVAX5.BITNET Cornell University H: (607) 257-7587 ******** Ithaca, NY 14853 W: (607) 255-1566 ******* Ego ipse custodies custudio
sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious) (04/10/89)
Reply-To: sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article <33256@athena.mit.edu>, FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >I read somewhere (MacWeek, I think) a comment made by someone at Connectix >to the effect that they had patented (or whatever) the Init and that, as >far as they knew, their method was the only way to do virtual memory for >the Mac OS. In other words, more legal squabling. But it sounds a little >fishy... Anyone with any ideas on this? I mentioned this to a friend of mine who is knowledgable about things like this. He said that if Connectix uses the PMMU (which they do) that they would be unable to patent their idea. You might think of it as creating the toolbox. If you can create the toolbox routines with no knowledge of them except for a set of specs, then they should be legal. Also, it would seem stupid that the idea of virtual memory would be patentable. - Sid Viscious Disclaimer: What you hear is what you want to.
jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (04/11/89)
In article <10464@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious) writes: > ... Also, it would seem stupid that the idea of virtual memory >would be patentable. Just because something is so important and useful that everyone should have it doesn't mean it can't be patented. In fact, this is exactly the type of item patent laws are meant to protect. What they don't protect is techniques or products that perform a function that would be "obvious to one skilled in the art" (to paraphrase). I believe the patent on the use of CRT displays for displaying characters generated by raster scanning techniques is still in force. -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || joseph@ece007.ncsu.edu (Try this one first) -----------|| Standard disclaimers and all that . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (04/11/89)
In article <10464@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious) writes... > > I mentioned this to a friend of mine who is knowledgable about >things like this. He said that if Connectix uses the PMMU (which they >do) that they would be unable to patent their idea. You might think >of it as creating the toolbox. If you can create the toolbox routines >with no knowledge of them except for a set of specs, then they should be >legal. Also, it would seem stupid that the idea of virtual memory >would be patentable. > I also mentioned this to a friend of mine who is knowledgeable in such things (and knows folks at Apple) and he said that he's heard that Apple's been working on this kind of stuff (VM, etc.) for _quite_ awhile, and in fact supposedly had running prototypes a while ago; all they'd have to do is show this prior work to be able to use it. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine