Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mcorp!nicthu
From: nicthu@mcorp.UUCP (Nick "The Watchdog" Thurn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multitasking is slower
Summary: There's still some overhead
Keywords: games, multitasking
Message-ID: <718@mcorp.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 90 17:29:11 GMT
References: <279@smosjc.UUCP> <4039@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Organization: Symix Computer Systems Inc., Columbus, Ohio
Lines: 31

In article <4039@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes:
> 
> In article <279@smosjc.UUCP> brett@smosjc.UUCP (Brett Coon) writes:
> >>From: Tim Friest - Programmer/Analyst <uunet!cornellc.cit.cornell.edu!AXTBF%ALASKA.BITNET>
> >>The point the people are making about games needing to multi-task is simply,
> >>if I run the game without anything else running, it is exactly the same as
> >>if the game took over the machine and didn't let me run anything else....
> >
> >NO!  For a program to allow multitasking, it has to be "nice".  It must own
> >and disown the system resources (esp. blitter) using OS calls, and do so
> >often enough to allow other tasks a chance to use them.  Depending on the 
> 
> Are you reading all of the original message?  If the machine is in a state
> so that the game is going "without anything else running", then there won't
> be "other tasks" that demand system resources like the blitter.  This
> seems fairly self-evident.
> 

But the program DOESN'T KNOW that nothing else is running, so it STILL has to
check periodically, just as Brett says.  The only way the program could know
is "if the game took over the machine and didn't let" you "run anything else."

In summary:
   "The point people are making" stated by Tim is wrong.
   Brett's statement is correct.
   Dave's statement is _non sequitur_.

----------
Nick Thurn                                    cis.ohio-state.edu!mcorp!nicthu
Symix Computer Systems Inc.                   nicthu@mcorp.UUCP
Columbus, Ohio