Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Game vs Multitasking Message-ID: <5789@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 6 Jun 90 11:41:49 GMT References: <136367@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <568@lily.warwick.ac.uk> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Distribution: comp Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 21 In article <568@lily.warwick.ac.uk> cstxqbt@warwick.ac.uk (CrisP of Truth and Justice) writes: > You all seem to complain that you have to reboot your machines. Some of you > say that it takes too long. What do you have in your startups. Personaly I > have as little as possible. I want to turn my machine on and go imidiatly. I don't want to reboot my machine because it's NOT a Commodore-64. If I wanted a game machine I could have got one a hell of a lot cheaper than the nearly 2 grand I paid for my original A1000 with options. I don't want to reboot because I may have work in progress at the time I start the game up. I am willing to deal with a game that kills multitasking while it's running, but it should leave allocated memory alone. If it can't run with what I give it, it should say so. Hackercorp's own game, Tracers, multitasks just fine. I really don't see why anyone else should find it impossible to at least return to multitasking when it's done. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva . / \ \_.--._/ My other car is a hot-air balloon. v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'