Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!ux.acs!kirsch
From: kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Multitaskers (Does Windows 3.0 multi-task?)
Keywords: multi-load, multi-task, time slice
Message-ID: <2939@ux.acs.umn.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 90 05:24:57 GMT
References: <67NZT1w163w@isishq.fidonet.org> <1990Dec11.172423.5673@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Dec11.190020.21128@beach.csulb.edu> <1990Dec19.180746.29082@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch)
Organization: University of Minnesota
Lines: 26

In article <1990Dec19.180746.29082@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> banko@lisboa.tmc.edu (Brad Banko) writes:
>Does Windows 3.0 actually multi-task?  That is, can several programs actually
>be running simultaneously as under multifinder on the Mac?
>
>Brad Banko

  I think we need to make some important distinctions here. Yes, Windows 
does multi-task, but it uses a rather crude time-slicing system. Multifinder 
does *not* multi-task, unless you count Print Monitor. Multifinder on the 
Mac is more like a *multi-loader*; i.e. you can load several programs at once
but only one of them will actually be doing any processing. The other programs
will be loaded in memory to be sure; however, they will not be *doing* 
anything. Mind you, I find this very convenient (having several programs 
loaded), but it's not the same as true multi-tasking. For really optimal  
multi-tasking, check out OS/2 or Unix. (Check out OS/2's multi-threading 
sometime, it's quite impressive ..)  

  Please, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I just want to clarify things 
for the average user, and don't intend any bias towards/against Windows, 
Multifinder, OS/2 or Unix (I use all four, and each have their merits). 
Any comments, please direct them to E-mail. 

Dave Kirsch 
kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu 
".. so, like, if you were in outer space and you blew your wad, would it go 
  on for infinity?"  - Billy, in 'Patti Rocks'