Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!indetech!vsi1!zorch!mykes From: mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: True Multitasking Message-ID: <1991Jan18.055614.13889@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 18 Jan 91 05:56:14 GMT References: <1991Jan11.075022.16943@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991Jan11.081137.17529@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 75 In article mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >[Still trying to push this back to comp.sys.amiga.misc - mwm] > >In article <1991Jan11.081137.17529@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: > There must be 2 kinds of tasks possible in a "true" multitasking system. > One kind of task is the kind that Amiga and Multifinder support, multiple > applications. The second is one that multifinder does not support which > is a task that is part of an application and is spawned while the > application runs and terminates sometime before (or right when) the > application quits. > >The only thing interesting you might be talking about is lightweight >processes. The only reason those are interesting is because they're >cheaper than normal processes. In any case, they have nothing to do > with the topic at hand. It has everything to do with the discussion at hand. Without what you call lightweight processes, you have something less than what you have with them. Without lightweight processes, you DON'T HAVE true multitasking. True multitasking is what the posting was about that this response was made to. Lightweight processes allow you to have a second task that writes graphics to the screen while another manipulates pulldown menus. Lightweight processes allow a hard disk backup program to read from hard disk, compress, and write to floppy (that is 1 application plus 2 lightweight processes) in the most efficient manner possible. It allows applications to take advantage of the multitasking environment. > > The Amiga also has a 3rd kind of multitasking. There are 3 CPUs in the > Amiga if you consider the Blitter and the Copper. All 3 of these CPUs can > be executing programs at the same time. In MOST cases, the 680x0 can still > execute and perform its Exec() multitasking while the other CPUs are > executing. > >That's not multitasking; multiprocessing is closer to the meaning of >the term. It's _still_ got nothing to do with the topic at hand. > Yes it is multiprocessing, but when you consider that these are things normally done by the CPU on other computers, it becomes a form of multitasking, too. > This definition of *true* multitasking should be good enough to shut up your > average anal-retentive Mac evangilist :) > >This has something to do with the topic at hand - it's the kind of >asinine statement that gives Amiga owners a bad name, and the attitude >that makes the phrase "true multitasking" something to be avoided. >Aforementioned Mac evangilist will go away, and quit wasting his time >trying to get information into your head. Anyone else in the vicinity >will go away, and be wary of anyone who uses an Amiga from then on. > > -- Call me an anal retentive amiga user because I am one. This thread is not just a bunch of Amiga guys having an intelligent discussion about various kinds of multitasking. It is Amiga guys explaining the difference between TRUE multitasking, which the Amiga has, and a switcher (albeit a glorious one) which the Mac has. No matter what we (Amiga) say, they (Mac) don't wanna believe that what they have is any less than what we have. By the way, I did not invent the term anal-retentive Mac evangilist. I just thought it was humorous (note the :) in my post) and it does describe most of the most gung-ho mac enthusiasts I run into. However obnoxious I can find such enthusiasts to be, I know I am just as obnoxious about the Amiga. And I do respect a person for being passionate about things he likes, even a mac. What I don't like about the Mac is that it is made by apple. I find the company policy of not selling ROMs anymore to be a vicious and malicious business practice. I find the pricing and performance of their machines and software to be poor. I find that those who support the company by buying their product are doing more harm than they know.