Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!bellcore!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Macintosh OS Message-ID: Date: 16 Jun 90 17:02:56 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> <26437.266ae612@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <1682@mcrware.UUCP> <12539@cbmvax.com Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 10 In article <12766@cbmvax.commodore.com> martin@cbmvax (Martin Hunt) writes: > A cooperative multitasking system could be designed with as little > process context as typical preemptive systems, but if you go to that > much trouble designing an OS, it wouldn't make any sense to cripple > it by not writing a decent scheduler. Counterexample, most early Forth schedulers were polled multitaskers. They were used for real-time, and context was generally just a *subset* of the processor registers. But of course this is hardly the sort of comparison the Macintosh people should take as complimentary. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.