Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!inria!geocub!pelegrin
From: pelegrin@geocub.greco-prog.fr
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why use MS-window ?
Message-ID: <160@geocub.greco-prog.fr>
Date: 6 Jun 90 17:48:46 GMT
References: <404@newave.UUCP> <10509@ingr.com> <54985@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Jun4.144158.22800@sj.ate.slb.com> <21855@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: news@geocub.greco-prog.fr
Reply-To: goofi!pelegrin@geocub.UUCP (Uncle Ben's)
Organization: ENSERB Engineering School of CS, Bordeaux, France
Lines: 45

In article <21855@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes:
>In article <1990Jun4.144158.22800@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes:
>>Whoa! hold on here! Unless you have a seperate processor for each process,
>>there is still going to be degradation when more than one task is running.
>>As long as there is only one CPU to do all the work, then multiple tasks will
>>each run slower than they would if they were run by themselves. 
  [...]
>>Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
>>Schlumberger Technologies       UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen

>There is not neccessarily a large hit at all if the OS is designed right. 
>The previous example about pagemaker is very good.  Granted a proccessor can
>only do x amount in x time but how you distribute that HIT (example-printing)
>is very important.
[...Stuff deleted, saying that in OS/2 PageMaker, there was ALMOST no
    noticeable effect of multitaskink on each process speed ...]
This is what makes OS/2 so great and
>Windows so bad!  Even though in theory there is the same amount of
>degration on both, for practical purposes there is no degration of OS/2
>in certain cases.  EACH TASK DOES NOT RUN SLOWER, ONLY SOME DO, when you
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Ha-ha ! So your previous discussion leaded to nothing. 9-)

>increase the number of tasks!
>	-Dean Wallwey 

	You are leading the discussion to a different subject : you take,
to measure process speed, your human perception : in the PageMaker case,
since you type at a rate of, say, 4 chars per second, you can not notice
any degradation since by the time you have pressed a key, the program has
already finished the processing of your previous key, and IS WAITING FOR
YOU. This extra time acts like a kind of buffer and prevents you from
noticing anything...
	Now, run brute strength tasks, and you'll feel that Russ' arguments
are perfectly true.

					f.p.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Zeu<FP> : The craziest programmer in France  |         _________          |
|------------------------------------------------|     /   |        \   \     |
| Francois Pellegrini is :                       |    /    |__   ___/    \    |
|      goofi!pelegrin@geocub.greco-prog.fr       |    \    |     |       /    |
| mcsun!inria!geocub!goofi!pelegrin@uunet.uu.net |     \   |     |      /     |
|         goofi!pelegrin@geocub.UUCP             |                            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------