Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: What is multitasking?
Message-ID: <14346@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 6 Nov 90 04:12:47 GMT
References: <9736.apple.net@pro-angmar> <1990Nov6.013239.7125@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 27

In article <1990Nov6.013239.7125@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes:
>Now, by the very first definition, the Mac AND the GS multitask.

Assuming supportive operative software.  Even the existence of "desk
accessories" is a form of multitasking, although a rather sick one.

>By the second, neither.  MultiFinder is NOT preemptive (which is assumed
>these days when talking about multitasking).  The Mac has no control
>over programs that blow up, or decide to hog all CPU time, or whatever.
>Therefore, neither the MacOS or GS/OS multitask (yet).

While I was happy to see you cite some reasonable definitions, why in
the world didn't you stick to them??  It's correct that these systems
do not implement PREEMPTIVE multitasking.  Neither does the AT&T 630
terminal, which is (correctly) marketed as a "Multi-Tasking Graphics"
terminal.  It is implemented so slickly that it is unusual for the
user to notice that the various layer (window) processes are not
really executing concurrently.  Voluntary task switching is simpler
by far than preemptive scheduling, and it works well if done properly.

>>And if you _really_ want to get technical, there is still only one CPU that
>>can multitask: an organic brain. (And I know of some of those that aren't too
>>good at it...maybe they need System 7 :)   )

Now you're getting really ridiculous.  I'm surrounded by multitasking
computer systems, but a large number of human brains I encounter don't
perform even one conceptual task very well, let alone concurrent ones.