Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm
From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: True Multitasking
Message-ID: <MWM.91Feb4105909@raven.pa.dec.com>
Date: 4 Feb 91 18:59:09 GMT
References: <42598@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <678@tnc.UUCP>
	<MWM.91Jan30173903@raven.pa.dec.com> <186@lsw.UUCP>
Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 34
In-Reply-To: gjc@lsw.UUCP's message of 4 Feb 91 08:18:55 GMT

In article <186@lsw.UUCP> gjc@lsw.UUCP (Greg) writes:
   In article <MWM.91Jan30173903@raven.pa.dec.com>, mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes:
   > That's one reasonable definition of "real" computers - that the system
   > crashing is considered to a system problem, and not an application
   > problem.
   > 
   > 	<mike

   Excuse me??   How can a programmer, who is human, possibly account for
   all possible contingencies???          

They can't - at least not for anything nontrivial.

   Does this mean that every time an application crashes your Amiga/Mac
   that the system designers are at fault just because some funky programmer
   who doesn't know what he's doing wrote some strange out-of-this world
   program??

The definition I just stated implies that if the answer to that
question isn't "yes", then you're not using a real computer.

   Or better yet!! are Are you trying to say that the Amiga is not a "real"
   computer???

No - I'm simply stating a definition for the term "real computer".
Whether any particular machine meets the definition is immaterial.

	<mike

--
My feet are set for dancing,				Mike Meyer
Won't you turn your music on.				mwm@pa.dec.com
My heart is like a loaded gun,				decwrl!mwm
Won't you let the water run.