Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag
This is the part that i really don't understand.
If there is memory protection, malicious code cannot do anything. That is the point of memory protection. You can't just read, write or execute anywhere. You can't directly access hardware resources. There might, in principle, be other holes in the OS security model that let things through... but ideally there would not be, which is what we would strive towards.
Otherwise, if malicious code can do anything, then so can your own code, in which case what are you complaining about?
The point is that, even though code can do less things under memory protection, what it can do is largely enough to mess up things a lot and get enough control to turn your machine into a spam-sending zombie - and at the end, there is no difference (apart the reduced freedom under the protected system).
You seem to want an "ideal" system in which there are no security holes. In that case, indeed it would be worth the trouble. But i'm afraid that this simply can't exist.
Anyway, what do you have against a system where memory protection is an option ? Why the heck can't we be true supervisors of our own machines ?