A/UX on new 030 notebooks?

[Gene Hightower]

In article <1991Jun19.093641.13 at skitzo.csc.ti.com> dittman at skitzo.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) writes:
>The reason A/UX isn't supported on the existing Mac Portable is the Portable
>only has a 68000, and you need a 68020+68851, 68030, or 68040 to run A/UX.

In article <54156 at apple.Apple.COM> blob at Apple.COM (Brian Bechtel) writes:
>liam at dcs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts;) writes:
>
>>Looking at the recent record of Apple CPUs, software and peripherals,
>>it seems that A/UX wasn't important enough to bother supporting it on
>>the existing Mac portable, or on the LC,
>
>A/UX requires a 68020 with PMMU or 68030.  The "existing Mac portable"
>uses a 68000, so it's unsupported.  The Macintosh LC uses a 68020 with
>no provision for a PMMU, so it's unsupported as well.  Importance has
>nothing to do with the decision as to which machines can run A/UX, in
>this case.

Apple chose not to support A/UX on the LC and the portable.

When you make a decision to use an old 68000 or a 68020 without a
socket for the 68851 you have made a decision not to run A/UX.

If A/UX was important to Apple you would see 68851 sockets in LCs and
maybe CMOS versions of the 68010 in the portable with some type of low
power MMU.

Unix can run on 68010 systems.  Look at the old Sun-1 and Sun-2
workstations.

I don't design hardware and so I don't claim to be an expert, but in
the case of the LC I don't think that adding support for the 68851
would have been a big deal.

It is mostly a marketing issue.  To keep the low priced LC from
hurting Mac-II sales Apple had to break it in some way.  Providing no
virtual memory support makes it broken enough to sell cheap.

-- 
   Gene Hightower