Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bu.edu!polygen!bill
From: bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0
Message-ID: <804@tzu.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jul 90 18:38:48 GMT
References: <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <1018@ashton.UUCP> <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: bill@tzu.UUCP (Bill Poitras)
Organization: Polygen Corporation, Waltham, MA
Lines: 16

In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes:
>>  Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives
>>  you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the
>>  user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. 
Not true!!!  Run 3 clock programs at once, and see if they constantly tick.  They all will,
no mattter which clock has the focus.  I dabbled into Windows programming a while ago, and 
found that you can multitask applications.  The thing is that Windows Real, Standard modes,
can only do non-preemtive multitasking.  That means that each app must behave enough to give up
the CPU when its done processing one message, such as a paint message.  I know that Windows 2.x has
always had this, I believe that 1.x did too.

+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Bill Poitras    | Polygen Corporation       | {princeton mit-eddie        |
|     (bill)      | Waltham, MA USA           |  bu sunne}!polygen!bill     |
|                 |                           | bill@polygen.com            |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+