Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!krk From: krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: True Multitasking Message-ID: <12996@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 16 Jan 91 01:58:37 GMT References: <1991Jan16.005818.3521@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Reply-To: krk@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Kuehl) Organization: Purdue Univserity Computer Science Department Lines: 14 In article <1991Jan16.005818.3521@rodan.acs.syr.edu> wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) writes: >to perform better than the other. So, Apple's decision to the MF route > (although possibly due to minimal work on their part) was based on I don't know if I am giving Apple too much credit, but I think they probably realized that preemptive scheduling would make a 68000 dinosaur slow. I worked on an SE for a few months last semester and I don't think I would ever want preemptive multitasking on it. Maybe if Apple's product line consisted totally of machines with 50Mhz 030's or 040's, they should use preemptive multitasking, but it doesn't. -- Kevin Kuehl krk@cs.purdue.edu kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edu