Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!watmath!mks.com!alex
From: alex@mks.com (Alex White)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: Why is OS/2 a memory hog?
Message-ID: <1989Nov21.151129.12991@mks.com>
Date: 21 Nov 89 15:11:29 GMT
References: <1989Nov15.155723.4430@mks.com> <3189@husc6.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: alex@mks.com (Alex White)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 14

In article <3189@husc6.harvard.edu> hellerst@husc7.UUCP writes:
>Your argument about fork is very restrictive.  New technology is always
>used in copycat ways for a while, but I submit that threads are significantly
>more powerful than fork, and that many applications will be able to make
>use of them to great advantage.  

HUH?
New Technology?

Threads aren't much different from the concept of multiple tasks running
in the same address space, sharing one TIOT.  Have you heard of OS/360
running MVT?
Now, I'm not quite sure just how lightweight tasks were back then, but
the concept was quite the same.