Moose Revision 0!!

[Dr. Hayden]

From:   MX%"newlin@ecn.purdue.edu" 12-FEB-1993 10:43:52.55
To:     HAYDEDR
CC:
Subj:   Re: Moose Revision 0!

Return-Path: <@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU:newlin@ecn.purdue.edu>
Received: from PURCCVM.BITNET (MAILER) by WKUVX1 (MX V3.2-alpha) with BSMTP;
          Fri, 12 Feb 1993 10:43:17 CST
Received: from PURCCVM by PURCCVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4853;
          Fri, 12 Feb 93 11:31:20 EST
Received: from lucky.ecn.purdue.edu by VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with
          TCP; Fri, 12 Feb 93 11:31:18 EST
Received: by lucky.ecn.purdue.edu (5.65/1.32jrs) id AA22481; Fri, 12 Feb 93
          11:31:50 -0500
From: <newlin@ecn.purdue.edu>
Message-ID: <9302121631.AA22481@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Moose Revision 0!
To: <haydedr@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 11:31:50 EST
In-Reply-To: <00967FB0.F9C35C60.7134@WKUVX1.BITNET>; from "Dr. Hayden" at Feb
    11, 93 4:20 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

>Also, our OS will not run on anything less than a 386SX, so is there
>perhaps a similar cutoff in the Motorola chips.  I mean, is there such
>a difference between, say, the 68020 and the 68030, that we should not
>develop for anything less than the 68030?

  The 68030 is only different from the '020 in that it has an
  MMU on board, where the '020 needs external support.

>And, about Mac support, isn't the user interface part of a Mac OS in
>ROM?

  Yup.  And parts of the ROM are not re-entrant.  (ICK!)

-John Newlin
 newlin@ecn.purdue.edu

PS- I don't have an alias set up for the list yet, could you forward this?