Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!gdt!gdr!exspes
From: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Rebuttal time
Message-ID: <1989Aug31.101219.20792@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Date: 31 Aug 89 10:12:19 GMT
References: <8908252144.AA27005@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <123950@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <16658@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol c/o University of Bath
Lines: 56

In article <16658@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> landay@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James A. Landay) writes:
>
>I am an Atari ST user.  I would love to have a multitasking OS, because I
>KNOW what kind of stuff I can do with it (from using Unix, X, Suns, etc.)
>
Fair comment.  If you would find it useful, I'd love for you to have it,
as well.

>Anyone who says otherwise must not have had much experience with
>multitasking OSs.
>
Unfair comment.  (We gonna have this argument *again*?)  I've been
using multitasking OSs since 1963.  I've written several multi-tasking
special-purpose systems, and worked *on* one MT general purpose O/S
and *with* probably two dozen different ones.  I *know* what
multitasking can do for you (so Please don't send me e-mail explaining
it).  I also know what it can do *to* you, and how much overhead it
imposes on the system.

*I* do not want a multitasking OS for *my* micro, because it would be
of zero use, and measurable inconvenience, for what *I* use *my* micro
for.  I *would* like an multitasking OS for the ST to be available,
because I would like people who could make use of it to do so, and
because it would broaden the potential market.  But I would like to be
an option, or to be turn-off-able, so that *I* didn't have to put up
with it.

(On the flip side, I would *not* want to have to do my *work* computing
without multitasking.  For what I do at work, MT is not only useful,
it's virtually essential.)  Read this paragraph again.  I do need MT
when it is appropriate for what I do.

The *'s are to emphasize the following situation:  There is a reason
that I don't want MT on my ST.  It is not that I don't understand or
appreciate MT.  Rather it is that I do understand it, I know what it is
good for.  And, I know what I use my ST for.  That use would be
hindered, not helped, by a multi-tasking system.  I'm hoping that the
*'s will save me from patronising 'educational' mail.

This is *my* opinion, based on *my* knowledge of *my* needs.  Your
mileage will certainly vary.  But keep in mind that 'lack of
understanding' is not the only reason for not wanting something.

My needs may change in future.  If so, I'll get a multitasking home
machine.  For now, no thanks.  My main point (one of my favourites) is
that there is NO perfect machine, no perfect type of OS, no perfect
language, ...  The trick is to recognise when any particular thing is
appropriate, and when it is simply a gimmick.  That is NOT a
characteristic of the thing alone, but depends strongly on the context
in which the thing is going to be used.

-- 
 Paul Smee               |    JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol
 Computer Centre         |   BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet
 University of Bristol   | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
 (Phone: +44 272 303132) |     UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes