Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Multitasking at home is great!! (Was Reality check: ....) Message-ID: Date: 9 Jan 91 23:39:14 GMT References: <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu> <1990Dec22.082240.2443@news.iastate.edu> <26060@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <17193@cbmvax.commodore.com> <17210@cbmvax.commodore. Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 53 In-Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 9 Jan 91 18:45:44 GMT In article <17289@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: In article mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >Then again, I'll could decide that "true" multitasking means "no task >can ever be completely blocked out, unless the user specifically >allows it to happen by tagging the blocked task". That makes a lot >more sense to me than just not allowing low priority tasks to starve >higher priority ones. But then the Amiga doesn't have "true" >multitasking. While not every multitasking OS tries to get close to realtime response, your restriction is nothing you'd expect to find in the average multitasking system, realtime or not. I disagree - every multitasking OS I've worked with (sans AmigaDOS) either met that restriction, or met it if you never used the real-time facilities. They all "aged" tasks so that a low-priority CPU-bound task would get some cycles, even in the presence of many high-priority cpu-bound tasks. And in general, most of these make the fact they you are mulitasking hidden from the programmer. That's certainly not true with TSRs, which are a hack, or desk accessories, which have to be specially written. But under Multifinder, one of those cooperative multitaskers, programs have to be specially written too in order to be multitasked. Well, defining a term based on what a programmer sees is natural for a programmer. But then you have to explain to a non-programmer why system P is "multitasking", whereas system NP isn't, when there is no difference in what they see happening. I think it makes a lot more sense to define a user interface question (and it is) in terms of what the user sees, instead of in terms of what a programmer sees. While what you consider to be multitasking depends on definition, a wacky restriction designed to exclude mainly the Amiga OS is silly, and you know it. Yup, I know it. To me, it looks like "true multitasking" is defined to exclude multifinder and similar hacks. I think that's silly. I think it's sad that others have picked that useage up (I can't think of any other reason for defining "true multitasking" that way, so ...). That means I go on a campaign to convince people _not_ to use that term, similar to the ongoing campaigns against "hacker" as a synonym for "computer literate criminal" and "PC" as a synonym for "IBM or compatable personal computer."