Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0! Message-ID: <7705@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 4 Feb 91 17:26:01 GMT References: <1991Jan27.105252.7019@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <7662@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb4.012848.13868@marlin.jcu.edu.au> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 36 In article <1991Feb4.012848.13868@marlin.jcu.edu.au> glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) writes: > In article <7662@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >How does Workbench know if you have programs running or not? > You mean the Amiga resource tracking is this bad! I'm appalled. This has nothing to do with resource tracking. The Workbench is *not* the only way programs can come into existence. I have a pretty minimum set of programs running, but there are still lots of tasks out there. Now, quick, is it OK for Workbench to close or not? ADDRESS Q PRI WAITSIG TYPE NAME 7f0e342 W 0 f0000000 TASK console.device 7f319a0 W 0 80001000 CLI 2 Background Process 7f42fc8 W 4 c0000000 PROCESS RexxMaster 7f2b468 W 0 10 PROCESS ramlib 7f46670 W 1 c0000000 TASK 3bc10 W 0 100 PROCESS SYS:System/CLI 7f17388 W 10 40000100 PROCESS DF0 7f1fb10 W 10 40000100 PROCESS Peter 7f25948 W 10 40000100 PROCESS Stephanie 7f5ae58 W 1 c0000000 CLI 3 Workbench 7f547d8 W 0 e2000000 PROCESS JR-Comm 7f0fb08 W 5 300 TASK trackdisk.device 7f08af2 W 20 c0000000 TASK input.device 7f41d68 W 0 f8000000 TASK jrcomm-clock 7f115f0 W 10 40000100 PROCESS WB_2.x 7f0afd0 W 12 c0000000 TASK SCSI bus handler 7f0a3f8 W 11 e0000000 TASK scsi.device 7f19ac0 W 10 40000100 PROCESS Work 7f31060 W 0 c0000100 PROCESS RAM 3d950 W 5 100 PROCESS CON (20 jobs 0 ready) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .