Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ntvaxb!ac08 From: ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Macintosh OS Message-ID: <26437.266ae612@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> Date: 4 Jun 90 22:52:02 GMT References: <1990May30.230248.6200@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1935@key.COM> <30273@ut-emx.UUCP> <76700207@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <402@newave.UUCP> <1990Jun2.132847.14292@oracle.com> Lines: 28 In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1990Jun2.132847.14292@oracle.com> csimmons@oracle.com writes: >> This "is the Mac OS an OS" line seems to assume that an OS defines a >> gruntload of really strange abstractions: like what your graphical user >> interface should look like. I always thought an OS should define a very >> minimal number of abstractions: like how the cpu resource is allocated >> to different processes (scheduling)... > > Exactly. An operating system is basically a resource manager for programs. > And one of the most important resources avalable is CPU time. An operating > system that does not manage that resource is so primitive as to barely > qualify for the name. > -- > Peter da Silva Oh, yeah, real important. For most small (single-user) machines, the CPU is really "working" at about 1% of capacity... and the few times it's up to that capacity, it's usually doing something to interface with a user... Sorry- come up with a better argument.... you were doing better with the "memory management" thing. People run out of memory a lot more than they "peg the needle" with the CPU... And those preemptive multitasking systems suck RAM like nobody's business... C Irby ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ac08@untvax