Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.misc:74 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:68 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!dege From: dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: How do we change the scheduler? (Was Re: Multitasking at home...) Message-ID: <1991Jan15.013243.24505@cs.umn.edu> Date: 15 Jan 91 01:32:43 GMT References: <17210@cbmvax.commodore. <7504@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept. Lines: 27 In jimb@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Jim Blandy) writes: >This discussion makes True Multitasking sound like the True Grail, or >True Love. There's an implicit value judgement there, and nobody >wants their machine to lack True Multitasking, even if they can't >agree on what that actually means. Let's abandon the term, and talk >about what actually happens. >My college OS textbook talks about "strict" and "non-strict" priority >systems for scheduling. A strict priority system never runs a >lower-priority task when a higher-priority task is runnable. Under a >non-strict scheme, lower-priority tasks get less time, but don't >starve. Both have their uses, but don't confuse them. It's because of this that the Amiga folks get so upset at the idea of Windows, Multi-finder, et al., calling themselves multi-tasking. Unix has a non-strict scheduling scheme, Amiga has a strict scheduling scheme, Windows and Multifinder are neither (the OS doesn't control scheduling, each application does that for itself.) In any case, it's the usefulness to the user that matters. Both Windows and Multifinder provide increased usefulness to their users. Beyond that, not much matters. --------------------------------