Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Multitasking on a II
Message-ID: <14710@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 11 Dec 90 04:26:12 GMT
References: <10425@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <14705@smoke.brl.mil> <1990Dec11.004650.8077@ee.ualberta.ca>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 24

In article <1990Dec11.004650.8077@ee.ualberta.ca> jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) writes:
-Non-preemptive multitasking is not much fun.  Especially since we have zillions
-of programs out there for the GS & other IIs that know nothing about it.  They
-would never give the CPU back.  Pre-emptive multitasking is VERY desireable.

Leapfrog demonstrated that the processes don't have to be aware of the
scheduling.  Almost any sensible application is going to make frequent
calls to the OS and ToolBox, providing a nice opportunity for rescheduling.

->management offers protection for one task against bugs in another, but
->this is more a convenience than a necessity.
-Not quite.  Maybe if you only write your own software or can afford to have
-some other program crash another one.  It is a necessity when reliability is
-considered.  And it sure makes life a LOT easier for software developers.
-This must be taken into account when designing a system.  Otherwise, only a
-few will write for it.

People are used to PCs crashing during software development.  I stand by
what I said.

->The terminal I am typing this on is truly multitasking, and it uses
->neither timer interrupts nor memory management.

It also seldom crashes or hangs..