Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: advice please - Atari-ST or Amiga Message-ID: <1991Feb11.122235.2248@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 11 Feb 91 12:22:35 GMT References: <1991Feb10.023415.8641@santra.uucp> <1991Feb10.073020.9858@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Feb10.160548.17877@santra.uucp> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 23 In article <1991Feb10.160548.17877@santra.uucp> s37837k@saha.hut.fi (Jari Lehto) writes: > That Multitasking-OS I have for my ST works like the regular ST-desktop. > The different tasks are in their own windows. You change between them simply > by clicking with mouse inside the window. And you can ewen go to the back- > round-process without bringing it out by holding down the right mouse-button. "The" background process? You mean the different tasks are not executing concurrently in their own windows? Or do you mean it pulls the damn Mac trick and wants to pop the current process to the top? > This OS also has its dark points. It demands a huge amount of memory and > a very fast CPU to operate without complaints. But so does every OS with > multitasking. This is pure hype. I've no complaints with multitasking on my stock Amiga 1000 with 512K and two floppies. Going back a few years, I've used a 3-user development system with a single 4-bit CPU, and 12K of RAM. Multitasking doesn't require any great resources... it's the cost of back-patching onto a monitor-type operating system that causes so much trouble for IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and now it appears Atari. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .