Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: How do we change the scheduler? (Was Re: Multitasking at home...) Message-ID: <7511@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 13 Jan 91 23:31:28 GMT References: <17210@cbmvax.commodore. <7504@sugar.hackercorp.com> <42459@ut-emx.uucp> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 52 In article <42459@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > In article <7504@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >No problem. Just demonstrate that his machine doesn't behave exactly like an > >Amiga. Cut it down to 512K and watch it crash. Start up more thana couple > The average Mac user knows less about the Amiga than the average Amiga user > knows about the Mac. Be that as it may, you can run a Mac 512k, and even do > task switching on it. Yes, using "switcher". There's as big a difference between Switcher and Multifinder as between Multifinder and AmigaOS. > >of applications in a 2 Meg machine. Ask why the mouse is moving funny. Have him > I can start up a _bunch_ of apps on a 2 meg Mac (I just have to be selective > about what I launch). Whereas I can start up a bunch of applications in my 1.5M Amiga and could care less what they are. That's the main difference... the Amiga just works, and you don't have to play games with partition sizes and stuff. > >try to do anything useful while formatting a disk. Ask him why he can't run > Yeah, that is a substantial criticism. I mean really, how OFTEN do you need > to format a disk? That's bordering on a flame, man. "Formatting a disk" is just an example of a moderately real-time task. There are plenty of others... for example, I can run applications concurrently with real-time music software on the Amiga, without screwing anything up. Again, on the Amiga it just works. On the Mac you have to fiddle with it. > Get a new source for your Mac info. MultiFinder runs just fine on the > Classic. Hmmm, last time I checked Multifinder required a Mac-II. I'll have to go down and watch Multifinder on a stock Classic some time. Given how much of a dog it is on a stock II I'm not expecting much. > When someone spreads misinformation about the competition, you begin to wonder > how thoroughly they know their own machine. Well, I can only work with what I've seen. And I've seen little on the Mac to make me expect Multifinder to be usable on a Classic. It just chews up too much RAM and CPU covering for applications that expect a single-tasking environment. Insinuating that I don't now "my own machine" because I'm not as impressed by multifinder as you would like is a low debating trick. You interested in communicating or "winning" here? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .