Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> 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.