Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!kent
From: kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: AmigaOS/UNIX - A Suggestion
Message-ID: <28758@swrinde.nde.swri.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 90 14:03:15 GMT
References: <606@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <298@pdxgate.UUCP> <6782@sugar.hackercorp.com> <8081@gollum.twg.com> <6789@sugar.hackercorp.com> <90287.120957DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Reply-To: kent@swrinde.UUCP (Kent D. Polk)
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
Lines: 21

In article <90287.120957DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I don't understand why people keep referring to the Amiga OS as "real time".
>What's real time about it? I don't see timing specifications in the Rom Kernal
>Manual.  In theory, any task or interrupt may be held off for an infinitely
>long time (I guess you could call that a timing specification...:-))
>
>-- Dan Babcock

It's not 'Real-Time' in the traditional sense of having a guaranteed
response time.  It does work nicely in many 'real-time' applications
since the typical response time is usually a couple of orders of
magnitude faster under load than 'Real-Time' systems which use a
comparable processor platform.

What does this mean? Don't use it where a guaranteed response time is
required, but where you really need to respond to lots of events in a
very timely fashion.

Kent Polk: Southwest Research Institute
Internet : kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu
UUCP     : $ {cs.utexas.edu, gatech!petro, sun!texsun}!swrinde!kent